Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

While it is claimed that bigfoot leaves footprints, to date no actual foot has been matched to suspected footprint.

Why?

The 'dragon in the garage' was an example of special pleading, not an analogy, and I even pointed out the special pleading being used for bigfoot when I said:

Instead of being invisible, floating, heatless, and incorporeal, bigfoot is too big, too elusive, a genetic gymnast, too intelligent, etc. etc.

I never claimed bigfoot was invisible, heatless, or floated, so you have taken what I wrote and misrepresented it in order to utilize a straw man argument.

I've made no such determination. I questioned why there is no bigfoot road kill, because it seems every other NA animal has ended up as road kill, no matter how smart, agile, big, rare, or elusive. Invoking unproven special bigfoot behavior, characteristics, or capabilities to explain away a situation that can't otherwise be explained is the basic underpinnings of special pleading.

RayG

You used Carl Sagan's dragon analogy for his argument regarding the existence of a creator. Be that as it may be, if Carl Sagan were alive today I would say to him just what I'm saying to you. The dragon in the garage was the example used for special pleading. It was, in this case, used as an analogy for what you thought of the bigfoot debate. I showed you how it was not related to bigfoot based on what I know. The debate was not about whether bigfoot existed but why there was no roadkill. The dismissal for the responses made, based on the question asked, made it the skeptic's straw man fallacy per the definition. I really don't think those that toss that phrase around on here are using it correctly. That's why I am picking this apart and I am not specifically directing this at you,Ray,you just happened to respond with the best example. What I have said in response to the question does not fit the criteria for the definition given for special pleading since it is an answerable question through research, and was based on research. You can't prove the existence of a creator but you could prove the existence for bigfoot, one way or the other, given the resources to do so. To me, these terms look like they have become a common crutch for the skeptic when there is nothing left to say.

[xspider1]

^ WoW. That sounds like a statement that I would never argue with.

The clever anecdotes and analogies, while often interesting and very funny, don't seem in general, to hold much water in an honest approach to this subject.

[gigantor]

The problem with game cams is that they are only able to cover a small area of "real estate".

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't seem to be an issue with every other reclusive animal out there. Game cams set to catch a pic of BF routinely photograph nocturnal animals seldom seen at all.

There are many examples, but I suggest the excellent results obtained by Wally Hersom.

Hersom even thinks he's captured pics of BF itself. Inconclusive, yet here we have a field researcher who believes and puts his money and time to work disproving Painthorse's idea.

Edited December 19, 2010 by gigantor

[gigantor]

Correction: others were also involved in obtaining those pics, not just Hersom.

[Guest]

*****A better example would be: How many cams would it take to "completely cover" "1 full acre". I'm no Einstein, lol, but would be really curious if someone could do the math to figure that one out!!!

Yes, it's all a numbers game. For example, if the average game cam covered 2000 square feet, and there were 1 million game cams out there running 24/7, the total area they would cover is represented by the red dot on the map below (mid-Ontario). But I doubt there's a million game cams out there nor are they running round the clock. In which case, why is anyone surprised that BF has never walked in front of a game cam?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Gigantofootecus

[xspider1]

Hey! I almost didn't even see that red dot! But, yep that seems to be the case. I guess one could only be surprised if they hadn't actually done the math. Thanks, GF. I certainly don't think that a clear picture of every land animal in the world has already been captured on a game cam which is what has been implied.

[Guest]

Pretty impressive visual there GF. xspider1 has an interesting point..

[Painthorse]

"THANK YOU" GF, for taking the time to do that! As xspider1 said I had to search for the red dot, lol.

I've been working my property that "adjoins over 1,000,000 acres of national forest" using only 3 cams. I've captured pics of the norm, deer, yotee, coons, possum, etc.

I've lived here 6 years and have as of yet to capture a bear. Have found their tracks, scat, and other evidence that they are here, that's a no brainer. BUT nada on the cams.

OK, so, yup, we know bears exist, nice crystal clear pics of bears. Creatures of opportunity, garbage eaters, rummagers when they know their's an easy meal, garbage bins to them are like a buffet.

My point: Not one of any of us can say with "certainty" what a squatch is.

We do not know with "certainty" what level of intelligence they have or may have aquired.

In reference to "road kill", do we really know if their level of intelligence may be at a higher level than the average armadillo or squirrel? (I'd like to see a Geico commercial with 2 squatch high 5'ing each other, lol) I've seen dogs watch passing cars waiting for a safe time to cross the road.

Do the squatch really know what a game cam is in order to avoid it?

"We don't know".

Is there reason to dismiss that logic?

If there is anyone that can tell me with "certainty" I would like to know the reasoning.

Point: It's kinda hard to debunk something without the facts.

It's kinda hard to prove something without the facts.

Until there is "certainty" one way or another, we'll keep going around the same old circles.

[Guest Spazmo]

Assumptions = bad.

Numbers = GOOD.

An appropriate number for this topic =

What percentage representation in gamecam pics does each species captured enjoy? If there are differences, why? Could some animals have different instincts and habits that make them more or less difficult to capture this way? Or are all known animals caught on gamecam spread evenly with respect to their overall populations vs. number of pics taken?

Again, if some animals are more elusive (at least regarding gamecams), then there is no reason to think that an animal who is likely to be more intelligent than the rest of the animals should get captured just as often as all other animals.

There are a lot of hypothetical variables. The odds may simply not have come up yet. I also think that there are a lot fewer people and gamecams deployed at any given time than some might think. There is also a possibility that BF has been captured on a gamecam, but if it was a blob, we (thankfully) tend to dismiss it. Maybe Bigfoot's number just hasn't come up yet.

ETA: It took me forever to find the "red" dot...looks kinda "rust" on my monitor.

[Guest]

This is why black bears and raccoons vastly outnumber mountain lions and lynxes.

It's not the relative number of organisms that matters; it is the relative biomass.

[Guest]

The Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy has an ongoing game camera search in two areas, one in East Texas and the other in an area around the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas and Oklahoma. I don't remember how many years this has been going on. They have a lot of photos of a lot of known animals. The interesting thing was their discovery of how black bears enjoy tearing up game cameras. This was a problem until the TBRC built metal encased cameras to protect them.

The TBRC published an article last month concerning their camera traps, which you can read here:

http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/190

If I am understanding this article correctly, the TBRC are claiming that the reason that no bigfoot has been captured on their game cameras is because the creatures are actually watching the TBRC place the cameras.

Boy, that's a lot of bigfoot playing eye spy.

[Sasfooty]

They don't have to avoid every camera that is out. All they have to avoid are the ones in their territory. Cameras that are put in places where they never go are irrelevant. So since they know every square inch of their area, & watch it constantly, it isn't all that hard to know where the cameras are & avoid them.

I know of someone that has several cameras in the heart of one of their favorite hunting areas. He is constantly having to remove leafy branches & blobs of mud from his cameras.

Not all that much eye spying to do.

[Guest RayG]

I certainly don't think that a clear picture of every land animal in the world has already been captured on a game cam which is what has been implied.

Have a particular one in mind? Even the elusive wolverine and cougar have fallen victim to game cams.

What I see so far, is more special pleading/excuses for why bigfoot is never clearly captured on a game cam.

The cameras are put in places they never go, they recognize the camera (smell, sight, sound, take your pick) and avoid it, there aren't millions of games cams out there running 24/7, they will sometimes destroy the camera, skeptics will twist and bend every rule of debate to dismiss any possible photos, etc. etc.

So even though clear photos of other animals end up on game cams, ones of bigfoot never do.

RayG

[GuyInIndiana]

The problem with that argument is that it doesn't seem to be an issue with every other reclusive animal out there. Game cams set to catch a pic of BF routinely photograph nocturnal animals seldom seen at all.

And the problem with THAT arugement is, that these are KNOWN animals with known attributes and habits and habitats. Establish that for a BF and you'll change the game.

[Guest RayG]

And the problem with THAT argument, is that game cams capture whatever animal wanders past it, regardless of whether the camera was placed there to capture that specific species or not.

RayG