Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

It's OK Sasfooty, they were rhetorical questions, and no, I don't believe mystical tradition, whether aboriginal or my own Catholicism, to be silly superstition.

My point was that some skeptics point to stories among the Sherpa that one of the Yeti subtypes, I don't remember which right now, has its feet on backward so it can run away from you while watching you. Obviously silly from a biological standpoint, but one rational explanation, for someone without modern medical/biological training, to explain how the animals seemed to evade capture/confrontation.

Indian tradition deals at some length with Brother Wolf or Brother Bear 'talking' to Indians, teaching them how to hunt, etc. Now we know that animals do not talk in the conventional sense in a way that we can converse with them, but that superstitious element of the Wolf or Bear do not make the animals figments of our imagination. They are real animals.

Again, for a mind not exposed to our level of scientific understanding, it could seem like an animal under chase 'disappeared' when in fact it may have just been pretty darn fast, or knew the terrain well and found a hiding place as an example.

In other words, there are fairly mundane explanations for much of what has been observed, but the attribution of mystical capabilities, or abilities not present in a scientific sense (talking dogs), by aboriginal peoples within the verbal tradition does not invalidate the existence of the animals.

[Sasfooty]

Indian tradition deals at some length with Brother Wolf or Brother Bear 'talking' to Indians, teaching them how to hunt, etc. Now we know that animals do not talk in the conventional sense in a way that we can converse with them, but that superstitious element of the Wolf or Bear do not make the animals figments of our imagination. They are real animals.

Since we both agree that Native tradition isn't just superstition, that leaves us with the question, "Since bears & wolves don't talk to us by conventional means, how did they talk to the Indians?"

I believe that when that happened, various spirits were manifesting as animals, & were talking telepathically to the Indians. Being Catholic, you will probably agree with my belief that there are spirits "out there", whether angels, demons or whatever.

Again, for a mind not exposed to our level of scientific understanding, it could seem like an animal under chase 'disappeared' when in fact it may have just been pretty darn fast, or knew the terrain well and found a hiding place as an example.

I have no doubt that that is exactly what happened in most cases, but we have no way of knowing for sure that there aren't "beings" out there that can in fact "disappear".

Minds that haven't been exposed to our level of scientific understanding aren't hindered by it's conclusions as to what does & does not exist or what they can & can't know. They know what their ancestors have handed down to them, what they see, and what they experience. Once you have experienced something supernatural, while wide awake, cold sober, & with a few other people who experienced the same thing, modern science can start to look pretty pale in comparison.

In other words, there are fairly mundane explanations for much of what has been observed, but the attribution of mystical capabilities, or abilities not present in a scientific sense (talking dogs), by aboriginal peoples within the verbal tradition does not

It appears that there can be fairly mundane explanations for almost anything you can think of, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is always the correct explanation for it.

And, no, none of this invalidates the existence of the animals.

[Guest]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room with the advocate and true believer is the fact there is no 800 pound sasquatch in the room with the advocate and true believer. In other words, no specimen after all this time doesn't bode well for the advocate, even if the advocate chooses to largely ignore this glaring fact, believing it isn't really important..

The fact that Bigfoot has not been verified to exist by either capture or bullet, or otherwise shown to be a real animal by incontrovertible means, should cause us all to rethink the phenomena and to be more cautious.

However, the skeptic does not have the killer argument that would once and for all prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. So we must state what is realistic and true to our way of thinking and understand there is no magic bullet to resolve this issue conclusively (unless Saskeptic, in a very weird twist of fate, runs over one on his field trip----or someone else finds definitive proof).

For the record, I as a skeptic do not think the lack of fossil remains (I agree with Norseman) or lack of roadkill are in any way conclusive as to the non-reality of Bigfoot. To posit a very small and rare and elusive population of Bigfoot would mitigate against both the lack of fossils and roadkill as damaging to the idea of Bigfoot, to my mind. The problem arises when advocates and true believers want to have a population of Bigfoot in every state, even highly populated states. The greater the population and distribution of the animal, the more likely it will be killed on the road, so this line of argument might tell against the ubiquitous Bigfoot of popular Bigfootery..

[Sasfooty]

In other words, no specimen after all this time doesn't bode well for the advocate, even if the advocate chooses to largely ignore this glaring fact, believing it isn't really important..

After you have stood face to face with one, come back & tell us how important this glaring fact is to you.

I'll bet it's importance diminishes considerably.

[southernyahoo]

Will it be any stronger if 20 years from now we still haven't had a road-killed bigfoot or other forthcoming proof?

Do Biologists use road kill statistics to monitor and gage population densities for any particular species? If not, then it would appear it is a poor way of gaging the presence or existence of animals, and likely because of all the variables that come into play whether an animal will be hit and if it will die, be recovered, and be reported to someone gathering the stats.

In 20 years, we will have cars with auto collision avoidance systems, higher end cars have it allready. Cars today are lighter, built to absorb impacts better, have all wheel drive, traction control, ani-lock brakes, wider tires, better headlights. All these things help us to "not" hit something on the road in front of us. So this argument could get weaker.

[Drew]

the rarity of the creature does not mean it can avoid road kill. There are approx. 100 Florida panthers, and they document a dozen or so roadkills per year in Florida. google search 'florida panther roadki

ll' the links wont work on bff for some reason.

[Guest]

I'm a bit surprised that my first post got the reaction it did from some. My intent was to keep the thread on topic and not have it divert into petty bickering over skeptics/believers. That is why I asked people not to ask me to prove a negative, which is exactly what I was then asked to do. I was hoping the thread issues I mentioned would be addressed and they mostly were not.

I would like to stay on topic, so please, if you disagree with my burden of proof arguement then ignore it.

Now, back on topic.

Trail cams. These things are everywhere. Any habitat that has deer hunters has trail cams in the woods. The deer hunter is not setting up his cam in pursuit of BF but that is still a lot of eyes in the woods that BF must avoid.

Someone asked for some sort of evidence of trail cam success in finding hard to find animals. Here's a mountain lion confirmation in Indiana. It has only been 140 years since the last Lion was confirmed in Indiana. This report does not mention it but my local paper (I'm from the area) mentioned a hunter had a pic of the lion, then the DNR went in and got the pics in this article.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23489186/detail.html

This one is perhaps a little more relevant to the untamed wilderness BF lives in. An Amazon dog. This one is noteworthy because even the natives did not know it existed. Also, just like the Indiana mountain lion, the person setting up the cam was not looking for the animal he found.

http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=newswatch&NW_user_op=view&NW_id=463

I'm asking why BF hasn't had the misfortune of walking in front of a camera. I'm also asking all responses to be restrained to the known laws of physics. If your answer involves E.S.P., disapparation, shape-shifting, omniscience, or a sense of smell not found anywhere else in the animal kingdom then please don't respond.

[Guest]

I'm a bit surprised that my first post got the reaction it did from some. My intent was to keep the thread on topic and not have it divert into petty bickering over skeptics/believers. That is why I asked people not to ask me to prove a negative, which is exactly what I was then asked to do. I was hoping the thread issues I mentioned would be addressed and they mostly were not.

I would like to stay on topic, so please, if you disagree with my burden of proof arguement then ignore it.

Now, back on topic.

Trail cams. These things are everywhere. Any habitat that has deer hunters has trail cams in the woods. The deer hunter is not setting up his cam in pursuit of BF but that is still a lot of eyes in the woods that BF must avoid.

Someone asked for some sort of evidence of trail cam success in finding hard to find animals. Here's a mountain lion confirmation in Indiana. It has only been 140 years since the last Lion was confirmed in Indiana. This report does not mention it but my local paper (I'm from the area) mentioned a hunter had a pic of the lion, then the DNR went in and got the pics in this article.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23489186/detail.html

This one is perhaps a little more relevant to the untamed wilderness BF lives in. An Amazon dog. This one is noteworthy because even the natives did not know it existed. Also, just like the Indiana mountain lion, the person setting up the cam was not looking for the animal he found.

http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=newswatch&NW_user_op=view&NW_id=463

I'm asking why BF hasn't had the misfortune of walking in front of a camera. I'm also asking all responses to be restrained to the known laws of physics. If your answer involves E.S.P., disapparation, shape-shifting, omniscience, or a sense of smell not found anywhere else in the animal kingdom then please don't respond.

Well what kind of response did you think you were gonna get with that? All hail "the voice of reason" has arrived?

Ok here is my stab at it. When you go out there you are trying to think like a bigfoot. So you put the trail cameras where you think he is most likely to saunter by, unfortunately, bigfoot is like an all terrain vehicle. He can go anywhere he dang well pleases and cut through vegetation like it was butter. So basically, it's a wild guess as to the best place to position them. That being said, figure up the odds for a rare and elusive creature walking past your game camera when he has no limitations regarding where he can walk. Humans are supposedly a lot more plentiful than a bigfoot, how often do you catch humans on your gamecams?

[Guest]

Jodie brings up a valid point. It might be that deployment of them varies across the board. What if some people with particular techniques get better results ? We might find out later what those parameters are.. if so, a high percentage of gamecams may simply be very obvious to the quarry giving us the present results. I think we are severely underestimating the detection capability of the species. Also Dr. John Bindernagel compares them with apes in the sense that they do not like the lens since it is like an eye. There may be other factors going on that have been either dismissed and ignored or that we have not taken into consideration. What? We do not have the specs on their auditory or chemotaxic capabilities yet. Rather than random list possibilities, I will add additional considerations in the near future.

[Guest parnassus]

bigfoot is like an all terrain vehicle. He can go anywhere he dang well pleases and cut through vegetation like it was butter. So basically, it's a wild guess as to the best place to position them. That being said, figure up the odds for a rare and elusive creature walking past your game camera when he has no limitations regarding where he can walk. Humans are supposedly a lot more plentiful than a bigfoot, how often do you catch humans on your gamecams?

why would you say "cut through vegetation like butter?" Do you mean noiselessly through tree limbs? do you think bigfoot just breaks trail everywhere he goes? and do you know how large animals climb hills and mountains? they do switchbacks on game trails. Do you think bigfoot doesn't care about caloric expenditure and risk of injury? And making great amounts of noise everywhere he goes? I must say, this thread just seems like massive special pleading. At some point doesn't it mean something that this postulated bigfoot is in so many ways unlike any animal that ever lived in North America? How paranormal does bigfoot have to behave in order to be considered paranormal?

oh by the way, we drive a lot of miles on US highways and still manage to avoid bagging a bigfoot.

Edited December 18, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest]

All factors. Read up on how gorillas move through vegetation compared to a man with a machete who knows how to use it. It is amazing.

[Guest]

What creatures are known to levitate, jump in ways that defy physics, dematerialize, etc?

I'm kind of curious about this as well.

I think given the suggestive nature of some of the recent posts that this presents an opportunity, as well as need for the position of the forum to be made clear...

> Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

The above are quotes from the *BFF Rules & Guidelines.*

While they make it clear that members who hold these beliefs are welcome to state them, they also serve as somewhat of a caution as to how they will most likely be received.

I personally lean towards belief and desperately want to be right. Start suggesting extraordinary or paranormal attributes to BF and you cross a definitive line in what my mind can accept.

Plus, and more importantly, I do not want the casual reader, who is new or unfamiliar with the BFF, to assume those representing/claiming these extraordinary attributes in any way represent the general belief/intent of the forum.

They don't.

[Guest]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room with the advocate and true believer is the fact there is no 800 pound sasquatch in the room with the advocate and true believer. In other words, no specimen after all this time doesn't bode well for the advocate, even if the advocate chooses to largely ignore this glaring fact, believing it isn't really important..

The fact that Bigfoot has not been verified to exist by either capture or bullet, or otherwise shown to be a real animal by incontrovertible means, should cause us all to rethink the phenomena and to be more cautious.

Only if you cling to the extreme absolutist "slab monkey" standard proposed by the hard core "skeptics".

It comes back down to the coffee analogy:

The HCS will insist that the only way to prove the existence of a cup of coffee is to present him with a steaming cup of the beverage on the kitchen table right in front of him.

A reasonable inquirer would look at the drop of coffee left on the table from the last cup, the coffeepot on the counter, the used filter and grounds in the trash and the empty cup in the sink and conclude that coffee does indeed exist, presence of an extant cup notwithstanding.

[Drew]

Yes, roadkill numbers are routinely utilized in determing health of populations, and their proximity to roads /civilization

[Guest]

A reasonable inquirer would look at the drop of coffee left on the table from the last cup, the coffeepot on the counter, the used filter and grounds in the trash and the empty cup in the sink and conclude that coffee does indeed exist, presence of an extant cup notwithstanding.

Looks like coffee, smells like coffee, tastes like coffee....now Mother Nature's calling.

Must be coffee!!!