Debunk The Debunking

[Guest Spazmo]

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?

Yes. (speaking only for myself)

[norseman]

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?

I can agree on one 1,2 and 3, but I'd like to elaborate if I could:

1)Correct. We have fossil evidence of a creature that COULD fit the description of Bigfoot. But those fossils originate in Asia, not N. America.

2)No type specimen has ever been collected, road kill or otherwise, and without a type specimen science is never going to recognize bigfoot as a species.

3)This is subjective, just as I have rejected a ghillie suit in the film subject of the Eichler film, others have not, so on and so forth. But concerning cameras and footage, we have the Patterson film. And one can only draw two conclusions to the film, either a uncategorized species walked across the creek bed in the film or it's a hoax. No ghillie suit theories, no bear misidentification, etc. So while we may not have good film footage of a bigfoot from a trail camera, we certainly have GOOD film footage.

Again, without a type specimen, not all of the tracks, pictures, audio recordings, eye witness accounts and so forth and so on are going to change the mind of science. And this is a good thing, skeptics and believers alike should rejoice that the system is setup the way it is. Science makes sure that something is demonstrably real and not in the realm of fairy tales. It's not enough to accept something on faith.

If I believe that Bigfoot exists, and I want to be taken seriously, then I need to be searching for proof of it's existence. And proof equals something tangible, something that bears the scrutiny of science. And yet I don't really see that commitment from the "bigfoot community". I think many are content to leave the mystery right where it is. And that's fine by me, just don't cry when the meanie skeptics are badgering you over your story, or your cast.

If I see it? And I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt it's not some idiot in a costume? I'm shooting it, I'm hauling it out by it's feet, and I'm calling a major university.

Until that times comes? Please be skeptical! It's what grounds mankind in reality.

[xspider1]

...know whut I mean Vern?

If you are talking to me then, no I don't know what you mean. I gave you a realistic, mathematical scenario whereby it is not surprising that we have not been presented with a bigfoot road-kill and, you quote Homer Simpson? really? really!?

And no, you didn't post clear game cam pics of every animal but, you found about 1 millionth of 'em.

ETA: I think you are making a lot of sense, norseman (except for the killing part but, that's up to you of course).

Bigfoot look sort of like a person in a really good Bigfoot suit so, that's probably why so many are in denial. : b

Edited December 23, 2010 by xspider1

[Guest Gambit]

And yet I don't really see that commitment from the "bigfoot community". I think many are content to leave the mystery right where it is. And that's fine by me, just don't cry when the meanie skeptics are badgering you over your story, or your cast.

I don't get it.

What else is someone with a cast obligated to do?

[Guest]

quote-norseman

Again, without a type specimen, not all of the tracks, pictures, audio recordings, eye witness accounts and so forth and so on are going to change the mind of science. And this is a good thing, skeptics and believers alike should rejoice that the system is setup the way it is. Science makes sure that something is demonstrably real and not in the realm of fairy tales. It's not enough to accept something on faith.

Sweet!

Edited December 23, 2010 by wickie

[Guest]

I don't get it.

What else is someone with a cast obligated to do?

Hang it on your mantle

[southernyahoo]

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.

I think you make a pretty good argument for that video Norseman, but there could be more convincing video than that. The stealth cams are / were some the slowest cameras to trigger and capture. They were lucky to get that with those cameras. The subject looks small as well, which would potentially make it a juvenile human. Thats not something I'd let my kid do during bear season.

While I do use game cams out in the field, I'm banking on hair / tissue / DNA results to get the job done.

[Guest RayG]

If you are talking to me then, no I don't know what you mean. I gave you a realistic, mathematical scenario whereby it is not surprising that we have not been presented with a bigfoot road-kill and, you quote Homer Simpson? really? really!?

No, you gave me manipulated statistics. You compared the number of pedestrian deaths to the total population instead of the number of pedestrians, left out the far higher number of injuries sustained by pedestrians each year (averages 60,000), and neglected to mention the number of pedestrians requiring emergency room treatment that are not included in reported fatalities and injuries.

Here, I can manipulate statistics too: A study of the wolverines in the Banff National Park area, estimated their population in 1978 to be about 30 individuals. A wolverine had been killed on the highway within 5 km of the study area in 1974. One out of thirty is 3.3 percent of the entire population of wolverines in the study area. Wolverines typically stay in remote areas away from humans, and are pretty shy, rare, and reclusive animals, with a much smaller population density than other forest carnivores, yet 3.3% ended up as road kill. If we apply those wolverine numbers to the 31,000 estimated sasquatches you came up with in post #274, then 1,023 should have been hit, injured, or killed by some form of vehicle. See how easy that is?

So yes, I quoted Homer Simpson.

And no, you didn't post clear game cam pics of every animal but, you found about 1 millionth of 'em.

I'm guessing I'd be able to find a clear game cam pic (or road kill example) of any North American animal you care to mention, well... except...

RayG

Edited December 23, 2010 by RayG

[Guest]

Some have talked about universities researching BF and the BF community commitment etc...

What is the biggest most comprehensive funding of an expedition for BF that has happened? I'm not talking about weekend warrior bounty hunter stuff but actual BF driven research by a university or some rich guy etc...

Also how much money, people, time, and commitment would be required for a university to make a good faith effort into finding BF?

[southernyahoo]

Tom Slick comes to mind as a major benefactor but he wasn't working with todays technology. There are a couple other Projects ongoing and promising to release results in DVD format, but how much was spent on these I have no idea.

[Guest RayG]

The single largest funding/grant is probably this one:

• $130,000 to Dr. Jeff Meldrum, from the Mayfield Foundation in support of Meldrum's project titled "North American Ape Project (NAAP): 2008." The North American Ape Project (NAAP) seeks to detect and collect evidence through support from the Mayfield Foundation. This will be undertaken primarily by means of hair snags monitored by camera traps. In addition, fieldworkers will record vocalizations, document tracks and sample associated scat. Habitats will be analyzed for availability and distribution of food resources.
  

RayG

[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 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

Can we eliminate accusations of special pleading and straw man fallacies? If one asks hypothetical questions about mythical beasts one should expect hypothetical explanations referenced from the associated science they are based on.....Yes, we have strayed from the point, but it takes two to do that.

[indiefoot]

Adrian Erickson has invested quite a bit in his project.

[Guest]

Again, without a type specimen, not all of the tracks, pictures, audio recordings, eye witness accounts and so forth and so on are going to change the mind of science. And this is a good thing, skeptics and believers alike should rejoice that the system is setup the way it is. Science makes sure that something is demonstrably real and not in the realm of fairy tales. It's not enough to accept something on faith.

Evidence is evidence, even if it does not rise to the level of dispositive proof. Tracks certified by credentialed experts ARE evidence. Hairs examined by certified hair examiners ARE evidence. DNA IS evidence. Eyewitness accounts ARE evidence.

I am sick of being accused as a proponent of being a "believer" or "accepting it on faith". I am not stupid. I made a rational decision to accept the likelihood of BF based on EVIDENCE, not blind faith/hope/whatever.

[Guest]

Bigfoot has never been clearly captured on a game camera?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS4jbSe-AlMHow 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.