Jump to content

Debunk The Debunking


Recommended Posts

In the case of something large, intimidating and at night, combined with the question of potentially wounded.. plus the emotions that accompany what you just saw.. I think its reasonable that people would quickly dismiss the exit of the vehicle because of self preservation reasons. JMHO. Never hit a bear .. but big bucks & other deer.. most of which kept going. Some get out .. some call it in and check for damage at a safer location. Regarding the 2000 lb bullet.. direct hit touchdown. Glancing blow.. you would be surprised how many deer keep going. Do not know for how long..

Edited by treeknocker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are you getting your data? Gosh some enterprising zoologist should be getting onto that prime source of research material. ;) Guilt free, too.

I'm not following you. Are you disputing the list I provided?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be funny, but how far would any animal get if it were hit with a 2000+ pound bullet?

From a pure Physics standpoint, they could theoretically be thrown quite far..... Seriously though, my comparison was only one possible explanation using the occasional failure of a hunter, focused on a specific animal, having a trail, and still not bringing it back. Nothing more, just an example where injured bodies are not brought back.
I would have to assert that most reasonable folks will stop after striking an object in a vehicle.

a) To gather their faculties

b)To find out what they struck

c) Inspect their own vehicle for damage

d) Render aid if applicable or just to call the Police

any of these are reasonable actions after the initial disorientation of an accident...

More so than a "Keep on truckin' " sort of motorist.

Could someone hit an object or wildlife and keep going? Of course, but I believe that to be a very small percentage of folk.

If you reread my post you will not find that I said these people did not stop, I said they did not stay around. That of course requires that damage to their vehicles was not so great as to prevent driving away. I also specifically mentioned, admittedly from my memory, accounts of lots of disturbing noise that convinced the driver to leave after they had stopped. In most of the reports I can recall, the driver either stopped right away but could not see the animal (most are at night), checked their vehicle, and moved on, or did not stop reportedly out of an overwhelming sense of fear.

Lastly, since most of the reports I remember were from the 60's and 70's, and in very mountainous areas, we have to remember the cell phone had not been invented yet, and if you wanted to make a call you had to drive to a phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no big reveal about walruses or the like. Merely pointing out that it was an assumption, given as a statement of fact, and further to point out that there is no verifiable documentation of stated fact that all animals except BF have been roadkill and bodies recovered.

Also, to point out how the argument has moved from from BF alone being immune (ridicule), to all mammals are roadkill, to all large mammals to roadkill, and finally to a named list and a proposed weight of 50kg or greater.

Are you suggesting a moving of the goalposts on my part? If so, I'll be asking you to provide a direct quote from me stating that "all mammals are roadkill" so as to defend yourself against accusation of presenting a strawman argument in your post. You asked for clarification on the species for which we have confirmation of roadkill. I presented a list of large mammals that are confirmed as roadkill, and even very conservatively mentioned some for which I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
masterbarber

I was simply commenting on what would be expected of reasonable folk, not your recollection of BF reports per se.

It's just a tad more than curious that reported accidents involving a BF seem to yield no proof. Not one single reported incident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting a moving of the goalposts on my part? If so, I'll be asking you to provide a direct quote from me stating that "all mammals are roadkill" so as to defend yourself against accusation of presenting a strawman argument in your post. You asked for clarification on the species for which we have confirmation of roadkill. I presented a list of large mammals that are confirmed as roadkill, and even very conservatively mentioned some for which I'm not sure.

I was speaking to the skeptics' position in general, which had mostly been proffered by Drew, RayG and yourself, with MB participating to a lesser degree.

It absolutely was a moving goalpost in the whole, because the first position was 'there are no BF roadkill or collisions' and the whole Ghost Ninja Ape Gymnast of the Apocalypse line was brought up. See RayG's post that said in part (my bolding)

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

This became 'there are no bodies after collisions' when a list of a dozen or so reports involving collisions was posted by Mulder.

I did not attribute anything in quotations to you Sas, it was a general statement about the evolving nature of the skeptic side of the discussion. Discussions like these quickly move into a pro and con, with folks arguing from one or the other side.

That said however, you did say in a reply to Jodie (my bolding again)

Is the point that a reason being offered for the lack of bigfoot roadkill is that bigfoots know to roll their bodies or something so that when they get struck they are far less likely to incur significant injury? If so, this is not a rational explanation because it is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of special pleading. In other words, you've invented something about bigfoot to explain away something troubling about it, in this case, its absence from roadkill. Unlike all other large mammals in North America (including us), bigfoot doesn't get seriously injured when hit by a car.
That sure sounds like 'all other large mammals' to me.

You later added a new definition

Nonetheless, I don't think the existence of stories about people hitting bigfoots had been in dispute. What we lack is the corroborating physical evidence. So why don't we have it?

So now we move from roadkill in the general, to corroborating physical evidence. I can certainly accept now that you may have meant that every time you used roadkill, but it was certainly not clear until well into the discussion.

I later asked

Is it actually the skeptics' position that there is roadkill evidence for every single 'known' animal? Without exception, every single 'known' animal has not only been struck by a car but a body has been recovered. Is that the actual argument?
to paraphrase the skeptical elelment of the discussion as it existed at that time.

Now, if you or anyone else then choose to adopt/defend that position, you cannot be surprised when I point out that the argument has, in fact, changed and the goalposts, in the general, have in fact moved.

And still, no 'proof' has been presented that your position, even as lastly bracketed (>50kg vertebtrates) is accurate, and for all practical matters it cannot be presented. Are you or anyone going to go out and find police reports and other reports that demonstrate every major vertebrate in North America have not only been struck by a vehicle, but at least one body has been recovered as a result? Of course not.

I know you may have access to reports and data that lead you to this conclusion Sas, but the data is not present in any single easily accessible location otherwise I suspect you would have pointed to it by now.

I am merely pointing out that it is a belief about the nature and extent of roadkill with bodies for 'known' large vertebrates, not a fact, that all known vertebtrates over 50kg have been struck and killed by a vehicle (roadkill) AND at least one body has been recovered as a result (corroborating physical evidence).

Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

Not trying to be funny, but how far would any animal get if it were hit with a 2000+ pound bullet?

What is the muzzle velocity of this 2000lb bullet.... 88 feet per second?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It absolutely was a moving goalpost in the whole, because the first position was 'there are no BF roadkill or collisions' and the whole Ghost Ninja Ape Gymnast of the Apocalypse line was brought up. See RayG's post that said in part (my bolding)

No, you're cherry picking. Ray's quote: " I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you? " Not only was Ray stating that he "couldn't think of one" example on his own, he asked for someone to provide an example. His was not a statement of skeptical dogma.

This became 'there are no bodies after collisions' when a list of a dozen or so reports involving collisions was posted by Mulder.

Not one of which has resulted in the recovery of a bigfoot body, ergo, no proof that any of those stories represents an accurate record of the events included.

That said however, you did say in a reply to Jodie (my bolding again)

"Is the point that a reason being offered for the lack of bigfoot roadkill is that bigfoots know to roll their bodies or something so that when they get struck they are far less likely to incur significant injury? If so, this is not a rational explanation because it is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of special pleading. In other words, you've invented something about bigfoot to explain away something troubling about it, in this case, its absence from roadkill. Unlike all other large mammals in North America (including us), bigfoot doesn't get seriously injured when hit by a car."

That sure sounds like 'all other large mammals' to me.

Only because you're overlooking the "when hit by a car" part. Do you know of any North American mammals that don't die when hit by a car? I don't, or at least I have no evidence of any.

Why have you bolded "absence from roadkill" and "lack of bigfoot roadkill"? Those are factually accurate statements, unless there's some proof of a roadkilled bigfoot out there that we've all missed.

You later added a new definition

So now we move from roadkill in the general, to corroborating physical evidence. I can certainly accept now that you may have meant that every time you used roadkill, but it was certainly not clear until well into the discussion.

I'm not sure where you're getting confused between stories of people hitting bigfoots and actual proof of such events. I learned many years ago that there were stories of people clipping bigfoots with their cars. I'm sure Ray was aware of such stories too.

" Is it actually the skeptics' position that there is roadkill evidence for every single 'known' animal? Without exception, every single 'known' animal has not only been struck by a car but a body has been recovered. Is that the actual argument?"

Now, if you or anyone else then choose to adopt/defend that position, you cannot be surprised when I point out that the argument has, in fact, changed and the goalposts, in the general, have in fact moved.

What are you talking about? You made a ridiculous statement that skeptics think "every single 'known' animal" has been struck and killed by a car and then accuse me of moving goalposts when I try to clarify what the skeptical position actually is? Please point out where anyone in this thread wrote that "every single 'known' animal" other than bigfoot has been struck and killed by a car.

And still, no 'proof' has been presented that your position, even as lastly bracketed (>50kg vertebtrates) is accurate, and for all practical matters it cannot be presented. Are you or anyone going to go out and find police reports and other reports that demonstrate every major vertebrate in North America have not only been struck by a vehicle, but at least one body has been recovered as a result? Of course not.

Right, It's much easier to simply Google the information. That's what I did, and that's the reason I qualified my statement with some exceptions of range-limited species for which it was ambiguous to me that we have reliable evidence that those species had been killed in automobile collisions. For the species I listed, yes, the data are readily available. If you'd like to dispute any one of them, be my guest.

I am merely pointing out that it is a belief about the nature and extent of roadkill with bodies for 'known' large vertebrates, not a fact, that all known vertebtrates over 50kg have been struck and killed by a vehicle (roadkill) AND at least one body has been recovered as a result (corroborating physical evidence).

If we qualify your statement a bit more, then such facts are readily available. Name a species of large mammal in the U.S. and southern Canada that has not been recorded as a roadkill, and if it truly hasn't then we can discuss its relevance to question of bigfoot as roadkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reread my post Sas, all of your major questions are answered in it - especially the part where I acknowledge you may have meant 'including a recovered body' when using roadkill, even if it was only clearly stated later in the discussion.

I bolded roadkill to identify what I was pointing to WRT the move from 'roadkill' as an event, to 'roadkill' as an event that left a recoverable body.

I did not, and am not disputing roadkill happens, I am saying it cannot be definitively proven that 'all vertebrates over 50kg' have been roadkill with a resultant body, let alone the earlier 'all large mammals' position, or the earlier earlier 'all north american mammals', or the earlier earlier earlier 'Bigfoot alone is immune'.

That was a textbook example of moving goalposts in the general, as I described it - but it is in the general, I can believe the intent may not have been to move the goalposts for individual posts, but it was the result.

I am using absurdity to illustrate the absurd to borrow from a master of the art.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

Maybe BF is smart enough to stay away from oncoming traffic.

Even though I'm a skeptic, I really don't see why you people are arguing about roadkill, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

Edited by gigantor
Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
Do you know of any North American mammals that don't die when hit by a car? I don't, or at least I have no evidence of any.

Saskeptic, you need to define "hit" as a direct frontal impact with a fast moving vehicle and an animal because animals do incurr physical contact with moving vehicles and they do live. Some animals run into the side of a moving vehicle and the trauma is not near as great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...