Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

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.

Well, there you go. Good pics (though not the first I've seen).

[Guest]

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

ANNNND there's the move! Can't claim there aren't any pics anymore, so now it's "clear pics" (and they get to determine what constitutes 'clear')!

And the goalposts are set into their new (temporary) homes as the "skeptics" rest between moves...

[Guest]

I want to discuss the coyote study mentioned by spazmo in the link below.

http://digitalcommon...=icwdm_usdanwrc

Here is the link by splash7 which is not a coyote study but discusses the results of the coyote study in spazmo's link and how it may relate to bf.

http://www.texasbigf...ews/48-news/190

The study done here has some great info with regards to coyotes and also has lots of flaws with how that info applies today and can be applied to BF. First, the report was published in 2003. Film camera's were used exclusively. Film camera's are inferior in every way to digitals which make up almost the entire trail cam industry today. They potentially give off more smell, they are loud, and they only hold 24 pics. The camera had a delay of 1 minute between pics. Today's digitals can take pics as short as 1 second. (Alphas could potentially be walking behind a beta and not have his pic taken). Also in this study the camera's were checked every week. Today a typical deer hunter may check his cams once a week during the hunting season but may not check them for three to six months when out of season. Also a camera/transmitter/receiver unit was used. This unit has a transmitter with a infrarred beam, then a reciever 1.5 to 5 meters away. The camera was connected to the reciever by cords which were covered by aluminum foil and dirt, rocks, etc... were used to camoflauge the cords. What this means is there were three separate units attached to vegetation or stakes at each camera site. This method is used to avoid triggering small rodents, etc with the camera but is much more obtrusive and harder to hide. Most trail cams in use today are single housing units. Also, the land they conducted the study in was open plains territory. The alphas along with a number of others wore radio collars.

The study determined that when the researchers would enter the field the alpha (and rarely any other coyote) would follow the movements of the researchers. The alpha was able to observe the researchers from as far as 1.5 km away (open plains). The researchers did successfully get photos of the alphas, just not in the alpha's own territory. Also the study determined their was no correlation between the age of coyote and the likelyhood of the coyote getting pictured. All coyotes regardless of age that were not alphas were successfully recorded (being old and experienced does not make you an alpha).

The study also split the alpha's territory in two. One half had cameras and one half did not. They determined that alphas would spend just as much time in the half with cameras as without. They were just able to avoid walking between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit.

It would be interesting to see the results of a restudy done in wooded areas with single housing cameras which are much easier to hide.

Substitute BF for coyote, and by the "skeptical" definition, you just special pled out the proverbial wazoo...

[Incorrigible1]

Don't take the bait people...

Good advice. In just the last few days, I've had these two pertinent questions ignored:

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

Are "shadowfolk" corporeal, flesh and blood creatures?

Yet those questions go unanswered. Seems to be par for the course for those claiming special knowledge.

[Guest]

Ok, for those of you that didn't read the opening post to this thread, and for those that just refuse to acknowledge the opening post......here it is again! Please pay attention to the bolded part.

I have some ideas for a series of conversations focused on debunking some of the more common debunking tactics/arguments with respect to everyone's favorite hairy bipedal crytid hominid.

I am interested in hearing from believers and skeptics alike which ones you would like to see discussed.

My intent is to remain as respectful as possible, I would like to minimize discussions of specific characters, or their character, and focus instead on the relative strengths and weaknesses of those arguments.

While I am sure this will be fun for believers, it could be an opportunity for skeptics to refine their arguments and rhetorical skills as well.

So what argument or tactic is of interest to you?

I want this thread to stay on topic, please. If you feel a need to rant about skeptics, please feel free to post it on one of the many "skeptic bashing" threads that we already have on this forum. Don't bring it to this thread!

Go back and read the posts that you have made in this thread. If you used the word "skeptic" anywhere in your post as a rebuttal, then you are guilty.

Since it is not entirely possible to discern who is a skeptic and who is a proponent any more than it is possible to discern who is a skeptical proponent, much less who is a proponent leaning skeptic, posts made concerning "skeptics" is unfair and uncalled for in this discussion.

Although I will not and do not want to inhibit anyone's privilege to post in this discussion, I will be handing out warnings if you continue to stray down the "**** the skeptic path" in your posts here.

Argue the argument, not what you perceive as the character of the arguer.

And as always, thank you for your cooperation.

Splash

[Guest]

Incorrigible1, on 17 December 2010 - 02:10 PM, said:

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

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey I, all I know is that the behavioral sequenches match known rainforest great ape behavior in many ways. I have always

pretty much stuck to what Dr. John Bindernagel has written about. But I am not qualified to answer the above questions,

since I have not had any decent observations that would involve cool stuff like above. I do know that people get excited and have different takes. I also know that if they are incredibly powerful that their jumps, runspeed, on both all fours and bipedally far exceed what we are used to seeing. They may have grizzly bear speed (45mph). Or so I am told by others who have gotten a glimpse. Are they all they are cracked up to be? Maybe. It might be we are going to be very surprised at what they bring to the table but we might have to think much more differently about them than most do now. Our advancement of the knowledge base is not terribly fast paced but it might be others have cards yet to show.. so we will see .

Are "shadowfolk" corporeal, flesh and blood creatures?

------------------------------------------------------

Reports suggest a lot of being limited by biological law.. questions about bioillumination in the eyes.. and other questions.. seems like some have gotten hurt and look wounded etc.

[Guest]

Go back and read the posts that you have made in this thread. If you used the word "skeptic" anywhere in your post as a rebuttal, then you are guilty.

Every one of my comments concerned the quality of argumentation. (I know perfectly well that comment above was aimed in part or in total at me.)

Since it is not entirely possible to discern who is a skeptic and who is a proponent any more than it is possible to discern who is a skeptical proponent, much less who is a proponent leaning skeptic, posts made concerning "skeptics" is unfair and uncalled for in this discussion.

See above.

Argue the argument, not what you perceive as the character of the arguer.

I proffer the following as proof that that is exactly what I have done:

ANNNND there's the move! Can't claim there aren't any pics anymore, so now it's "clear pics" (and they get to determine what constitutes 'clear')!

Clearly about the arguement, and the associated evidentiary standard demanded by that side.

Substitute BF for coyote, and by the "skeptical" definition, you just special pled out the proverbial wazoo...

Again, taken in context of the post it was in reply to, clearly addressing the arguement on proffer by the other side.

[xspider1]

Ray -

Did you miss post #274 where I demonstrated mathematically that, considering the limited number of these animals that are likely to exist, a recovered Bigfoot road-kill would be more unlikely than the current situation?

And, as far as clear trail cam pics of every single animal species; could you please post one of each of those pics so we can see if Bigfoot is in fact the only animal missing from the list? thx

Edited December 22, 2010 by xspider1

[indiefoot]

Yet those questions go unanswered. Seems to be par for the course for those claiming special knowledge.

Can you point out for us the page number in the "Official Bigfoot Discussion Handbook" where it explains the difference between "special knowledge" and "regular knowledge".

Some people might want to avoid discussing "special knowledge" in an effort to keep the peace.

[Guest]

You forgot this one, Mulder.

And the goalposts are set into their new (temporary) homes as the "skeptics" rest between moves...

Mulder, you are not the only one that my post was addressed to.

Don't push this issue, please.

Thanks,

Splash

[norseman]

Bigfoot has never been clearly captured on a game camera?

How much more clear do you want it?

Either the subject is a hoax or it's something "other" than a bear. Fred Eichler is one of the best bow hunters in the nation and is a avid bear hunter. If he cannot "describe" it, then people need to sit up and take notice.

As far as a hoax? I know one thing for sure, that there is NO WAY IN HELL that I'm dressing up in a ape costume and walking around in a area that I know is active with bow hunters. Fred Eichler wouldn't mistake me for a bear......but I don't know about all of them. And a modern bow and arrow setup would make quick work of you, your probably not going to get the bleeding stopped in time to make it from a remote hunting location to the ER. Your going to bleed out on the ground and give a hunter nightmares for the rest of his life when he realizes he killed a fellow human being. But!

And as far as game cameras in general? Do you know how many crappy pictures I get from mine? If I'm going to set out to prove the existence of Sasquatch, I'm not relying on trail cameras to get me there. Unless I'm using them as a tool to hunt him (which is what they are designed to do) in a attempt to collect a type specimen.

We have the Patterson film and several other films for that matter..........they have been rejected by science. A type specimen or a irrefutable part there of is the only thing that's going to convince science.

So until then? The skeptics have every right to be skeptical. If you believe they exist and spend a lot of time and resources in a attempt to prove they exist? You better be ready to collect a type specimen.

But don't tell me that a camera, trail or otherwise hasn't filmed something "clear". They most certainly have.

Edited December 22, 2010 by norseman

[Guest]

That video was pretty much discussed on the old BFF. I believe general consensus was a hunter in a ghilly suit walking past the camera.

[norseman]

That video was pretty much discussed on the old BFF. I believe general consensus was a hunter in a ghilly suit walking past the camera.

A ghillie suit is designed to break up the human outline. It's certainly possible that it's just a "bad" ghillie suit, but I don't know how much I accept that argument. The shoulders of the subject are very pronounced, and so are the arms. Usually the jute string used in the construction are very long, which breaks up the outline of a head, shoulders and arms. So basically the video should show a walking bush instead of a humanoid figure, if indeed it was a ghillie suit.

It looks like a humanoid figure with SHORT hair to me. *shrugs*

[Guest]

Well I guess we'd better get a thread going on that clip . . .

But yes norseman, you're right that there's clearly something on that clip. The question is if it's clearly a bigfoot. The Jacobs photos clearly show something too - something that some people initially thought (and some apparently still do) was a bigfoot.

The game cam issue is similar to the roadkill issue and the fossil issue.

(1) We don't have any fossilized or other ancient remains we can attribute to bigfoot in North America. We might have some if bigfoot is really Gigantopithecus and if Giganto survived to the recent time, dispersed to the Western Hemisphere, etc. We might have some if there's some big "Indian" remains sitting in a drawer in a museum somewhere that have been misinterpreted as "really big Homo sapiens" rather than "bigfoot of average stature." We might have that, but we have no confirmation that we do.

(2) We don't have any confirmation of a bigfoot roadkill. We have some claims that bigfoots have been struck, and even claims that bigfoots have been killed and "confiscated," but there is no confirmation of these anecdotes.

(3) We don't have confirmation of a bigfoot photographed by a trail cam. We have some that some folks think are bigfoots, but no unambiguous trail cam photos for which it is obvious that it's a bigfoot in the photo.

Can we all agree on 1, 2, and 3? In other words, can "skeptics" and "proponents" alike agree that 1–3 are factual statements?

[Guest RayG]

Ray -

Did you miss post #274 where I demonstrated mathematically that, considering the limited number of these animals that are likely to exist, a recovered Bigfoot road-kill would be more unlikely than the current situation?

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that." -- Homer Simpson

And, as far as clear trail cam pics of every single animal species; could you please post one of each of those pics so we can see if Bigfoot is in fact the only animal missing from the list? thx

You mean like this? Clearly labeled even. No blobsquatches, know whut I mean Vern?

Can you post a similarly clear pic of bigfoot captured on a trail cam?

RayG