Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest]

The number of sightings itself, makes the idea that there is a Bigfoot less likely.

 

If there were 10 sightings in the last 40 years, at least you could say Bigfoot is an elusive creature, and we need to go look for it.   However, there are 10,000 sightings, in places full of people, on 6 lane divided highways, in freeway rest-areas, on porches in trailer parks, on hillsides in plain view of 100 people, and in state parks crawling with recreational tourists.  Animals don't hang out in places like that and not get nabbed.   Every time a sighting is added, it means that the idea of Bigfoot existing is less likely.

 

It is not an elusive creature, there are too many sightings to label them 'elusive', therefore Bigfoot should be brought in.

 

Bigfoot has not been brought in therefore, the sightings are an anomaly.

Drew,

You have nicely explained why people like myself, a person who once thought Bigfoot was probably real, have become seriously doubtful of its existence today. Once there was a plausibility about a rare, seldom seen animal unknown to documented knowledge, living in the PNW. But, as the Bigfoot story "went viral," as they say nowadays, the creature itself metastasized in a way that destroyed it as a biological entity and revealed its true nature as mere lore.

An animal species, purported to be the tallest and perhaps at times heaviest land animal living on the North American continent, is seen in every state on the continent, in not just remote areas but areas well populated by humans, outside our windows and digging through our garbage, visiting our holiday picnics, crossing our roads and backyards, and much more, and not once confirmed as any real animal would be, places that creature in the company of leprechauns and goatman, and not moose, elk, wolves, and pumas.

DWA,

Thousands of trackways??

Analysis of relative volume of evidence??

Can I find this stuff in the same place you pulled "rules of argument" from....well on second thought I'd rather not

Yes, there is exaggeration. Great exaggeration. That's the effect of a total lack of cautious analysis.

[Guest Serohs]

Replicate the suit. Only argument I got at the moment. For petes sake Hollywood can re create the moon landing (lets not go there LOL) for films, and in all this time no one but a backwoods cowboy with inferior materials and no where near a Hollywood budget is the only person in the world who could create patty. Heck just make a right leg like Patty's and make it perform like that. anyway my 2 cents

 

 

So Alternate title to thread. "Skeptics claim hoax....Still after 40+ years no one can produce or re-produce the suit."

Edited June 13, 2013 by Serohs

[Guest]

I'm not sure why or how it's so easy to misunderstand a position I have made clear many times here.

 

But here goes...again...:

 

Sasquatch is an open question.

 

Skeptics say they don't have to prove anything.  Um, OK.  Your prerogative.  I don't have to, either.

 

But until 100% of the evidence is shown to be a false positive...what it is remains undetermined.

 

No statute of limitations either.  As long as the evidence remains unexamined...it remains unexamined. 

 

Anybody who is making conclusions about anything right now is acting on an unfounded belief, and not evidence.  Can't do that in science.

 

Refer back to this whenever you're unsure.

Well then you can just show me where I'm wrong rather than using YOU ARE WRONG! rants as your entire argument.

 

By the way, you couldn't get my oft-stated-here position any wronger than you do...which doesn't bode well for the assignment I just set you.

 

But try anyway.

 

Look at your post #588 then.  I can't be bothered to look back any further than one page, and don't need to.  A point was made to you, showing you to be wrong.  You replied with a non-sequitur.  This is what you always do.  It is what you will do again.

 

Or #585.  There, it's been pointed out to you again how pointless it is for science to go looking for Bigfoots when time upon time has proven that even if Bigfoots do exist, you can't find them or any evidence of them by running into the woods after a sighting.  How did you reply?  You accused the poster of lying, and without any supporting logic, claimed that he was making your case for you.

Um, no.

 

In both cases, I was simply pointing out what happens when one is ignorant of the evidence.  Which says two things:

 

1) Go into work tomorrow saying you saw a sasquatch and ...I can't believe I have to say this to people.  Thinking you will universally be taken seriously is just silly, and contradicted by copious evidence most people just don't bother to read.

 

2) Go into the woods in places where lots of evidence has been found...and you find lots of evidence (see:  Operation Persistence.  And don't come back with that tiresome rant about proof not happening on your schedule).

 

Come on guys.  Thicken up this thin gruel some.  You know, you aren't being argued with here.  You'd have to present an argument to do that.

WSA, DWA,

When you read Bigfoot eyewitness accounts, do you generally accept them as true? For instance, the report above that DWA posted, the Maryland story; did you read that specific report and think to yourself, "It happened, it's true. This is evidence of Bigfoot. No doubt." Or, do you ever entertain doubt when reading reports from BFRO and elsewhere? Do you ever think: "I wonder if this really happened?" Do you ever think about attending issues, such as the unlikelihood of giant apes living undetected in the Maryland hinterland? Does that type of issue ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever consider that such a report as DWA posted may have alternative explanations, such as it is a simple fabrication with no truth to it? Would you know how to verify the story? Would you ever try to verify it? Or is it just a look, read, and believe event for you?

I don't consider anything either X or Y until sufficient evidence has been presented to me to show me it is one or the other.

 

In other words:

 

I think about this the way a scientist should.

 

When I say "toss it on the pile," I mean "can you prove to me what that is?  If you can't, then we don't know until someone can, do we...?"

 

Having spent way lots of time in MD, I can tell you that to consider the absence of something to be a likely thing that leaves plenty of evidence that most people ignore because, because, well, it can't be!  is just not what one does when one is being objective.

 

it's just the continuing it ain't real! rants - unaccompanied by anything that would make an objective person believe that - that are my problem.  If bigfoot's solved for you, great.  I wouldn't be bothering, personally.  I mean, you'll never see me on paranormal sites.  Why?  I'm not down for it until it's proven to me; that's my position...and it just isn't that interesting.

 

This doesn't seem that interesting for some people here ...and yet there they are, again and again, and again and again and again....

DWA,

If the existence of Bigfoot is an open question, then a possible answer would be no. Would you agree?

You suggest it remains an open question because 100% of the evidence needs to be shown to be a "false positive" before we can say with conviction that there is no Bigfoot. Why do you find this to be a reasonable pre-condition? In principle, how would one go about showing every item of purported Bigfoot evidence is a "false positive." As a thought experiment, let's pretend that all of the evidence IS false. Now, how would you or I ever really be able to verify that? If one fabricated track or sighting is not retracted by the fabricator, than how are we to truly verify the evidence as a "false positive?" If the 100% disproof of all Bigfoot evidence is unattainable in real life practice, would you agree that your pre-condition is just a rhetorical device made to insure that Bigfoot remains an "open question" forever?

You suggest: "Go into the woods in places where lots of evidence has been found...and you find lots of evidence." I wonder why you don't commit to a logical conclusion here. If we go where Bigfoot is, because others are finding evidence of it there, and we too find evidence, it is curious you do not take the next step and say we might turn up a specimen as well. Why the oversight? Are you a pessimist? Or, are you just uncharacteristically realistic for just this one moment?

Bigfoot phenomena is not a solved issue to me. I think it is insoluble, because skeptics (or anyone else) can't prove a universal negative, and enthusiasts are unable to prove anything. I suspect it is not biology that drives the mystery, though. Looking at the origin of folk-lore and beliefs and personal perceptions would be helpful. I am not one that thinks he has all the answers, though. I may be a pessimist, but I'm not a cynic. All and all, it is a fascinating subject and that's why I read and respond to posts here.

[Guest]

Replicate the suit. Only argument I got at the moment. For petes sake Hollywood can re create the moon landing (lets not go there LOL) for films, and in all this time no one but a backwoods cowboy with inferior materials and no where near a Hollywood budget is the only person in the world who could create patty. Heck just make a right leg like Patty's and make it perform like that. anyway my 2 cents

 

 

So Alternate title to thread. "Skeptics claim hoax....Still after 40+ years no one can produce or re-produce the suit."

While I disagree that the Patterson film is definitive, or end-all convincing, I do agree that we ought to be able to create a reasonable facsimile.

[Cotter]

I think the skeptics' argument is not uncalled for or out of bounds in the regard of the # of sightings vs the possibility of non-discovery.

It's a hard concept to wrap ones' head around (myself included).  So for that question, I have no good response other than perhaps 'elusive' isn't the best word to describe them.

 

The observation I've made, through personal 1 on 1 conversations, and through this website is, is that there is not a good explanation for those here, and those I've met personally, that have had long, unmistakable, close range sightings.  I don't buy the whole alchohol, drugs, hallucination deal as I've been to all of those places and not once seen a BF, nor anything else I would be compelled to call my Sherrif's dept about, or call places like the BFRO to report or the like.

[Drew]

 

G.Blacki fossils were found in Asia, there is nothing to indicate it was ever in North America.

 Yes, but that only means that fossil remains of that species have been found in Asia - i.e. the fossil record in itself is not an exhaustive catalogue of a species distribution. Remember, Asia and North America have been contiguous for much of 'recent' geological time, and there is unambiguous evidence for 'Asian' species occurring in NA...

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Red-Panda-Discovered-in-North-America-36383.shtml

 

 

You understand the immense distances between southern China, and the Bering Strait?

 

7000 miles from Guangzhou China, and the Bering Strait. (conservatively)

 

Maybe not impossible for a biped made for long distance walking, but definitely a chore for a creature who was probably a tree dwelling, bamboo eating, semi quadruped, with ape feet.

 

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/gigantopithecus--_the_jury-rig.html

Edited June 13, 2013 by Drew

[norseman]

G.Blacki fossils were found in Asia, there is nothing to indicate it was ever in North America.

Yes, but that only means that fossil remains of that species have been found in Asia - i.e. the fossil record in itself is not an exhaustive catalogue of a species distribution. Remember, Asia and North America have been contiguous for much of 'recent' geological time, and there is unambiguous evidence for 'Asian' species occurring in NA...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Red-Panda-Discovered-in-North-America-36383.shtml

You understand the immense distances between southern China, and the Bering Strait?

7000 miles from Guangzhou China, and the Bering Strait. (conservatively)

Maybe not impossible for a biped made for long distance walking, but definitely a chore for a creature who was probably a tree dwelling, bamboo eating, semi quadruped, with ape feet.

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/gigantopithecus--_the_jury-rig.html

this is a common misconception. Australians did not leave africa and walk to australia in one life time. It took many many generations to cover that distance.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

If the existence of Bigfoot is an open question, then a possible answer would be no. Would you agree?

You suggest it remains an open question because 100% of the evidence needs to be shown to be a "false positive" before we can say with conviction that there is no Bigfoot. Why do you find this to be a reasonable pre-condition? In principle, how would one go about showing every item of purported Bigfoot evidence is a "false positive." As a thought experiment, let's pretend that all of the evidence IS false. Now, how would you or I ever really be able to verify that? If one fabricated track or sighting is not retracted by the fabricator, than how are we to truly verify the evidence as a "false positive?" If the 100% disproof of all Bigfoot evidence is unattainable in real life practice, would you agree that your pre-condition is just a rhetorical device made to insure that Bigfoot remains an "open question" forever?

You suggest: "Go into the woods in places where lots of evidence has been found...and you find lots of evidence." I wonder why you don't commit to a logical conclusion here. If we go where Bigfoot is, because others are finding evidence of it there, and we too find evidence, it is curious you do not take the next step and say we might turn up a specimen as well. Why the oversight? Are you a pessimist? Or, are you just uncharacteristically realistic for just this one moment?

Bigfoot phenomena is not a solved issue to me. I think it is insoluble, because skeptics (or anyone else) can't prove a universal negative, and enthusiasts are unable to prove anything. I suspect it is not biology that drives the mystery, though. Looking at the origin of folk-lore and beliefs and personal perceptions would be helpful. I am not one that thinks he has all the answers, though. I may be a pessimist, but I'm not a cynic. All and all, it is a fascinating subject and that's why I read and respond to posts here.

 

For anythig that is an open question, a possible answer would have to be "no."

 

I think often of what a lot of the bigfoot skeptics I have read would look like were they proven wrong.  It's very hard for me to believe that they are totally prepared for that.  They'd either look like fools or look like fools pretending they didn't look like fools.  That alone is sufficient incentive for me to keep an open mind.

 

My statement about proving false positives is simply making this point;  every proposition in a scientific discussion requires evidence.  It doesn't do any good to say "it's all this" and think that the question can now be dismissed.  It can't be dismissed until the proposition is proven.  Allegations that eyewitnesses are wrong in toto have no more evidence backing them up than allegations that the witnesses are correct.  Yet some believe that it's "obvious" that they're all wrong, something that isn't close to being the case.  If it were, I sure wouldn't be here.  We are far, far short of the number of false positives that would have to be proven to significantly affect my take on the evidence.  To me, skeptics have three choices:  first, prove it all wrong; second; prove enough of it wrong that the chances are not worth betting that the remainder represent accurate observations...or third, simply await the proof and stop telling us "how it's all wrong" when no evidence supports that conclusion.

 

(As I've said many times:  proven false positives are very clearly distinct from the "live" evidence, and give one no reason to discount the latter.)

 

(OH.  IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW LONG THE PROOF TAKES.  This is another reason I task the skeptics to prove false positives.  This does not go away - ever - until the evidence is addressed, one way or the other.  If the sightings and trackways continue, the evidence continues to build and the skeptics' case gets weaker.  Until there is movement on the evidence:  open question, with no statute of limitations.)

 

My statement ""Go into the woods in places where lots of evidence has been found...and you find lots of evidence" is its own logical conclusion.  Proof cannot be claimed until the society accepts the animal.  I believe NAWAC is clearly seeing and hearing these animals; there's no reason for me to believe otherwise.  The patterns they report are very similar to what we see with chimps and gorillas.  Are we at proof yet?  No.

 

I don't think it's insoluble.  As with other animals we've confirmed, sufficient field time needs to be put in.  Three expeditions in a half-century - the only three ever, in fact - shouldn't be expected to provide proof absent major luck.  But they've provided a movie; tracks that conform to what's been seen in many other places; a number of sightings and audio recordings that conform with the general body of evidence; and a number of sober, serious people, including some scientists, that vouch for the animal's existence.

 

No one gives me any reason not to believe that.  It isn't proof...but it sure doesn't read like skeptics seem to think it does.

[Drew]

 

this is a common misconception. Australians did not leave africa and walk to australia in one life time. It took many many generations to cover that distance.

 

 

Nor did I imply that they walked it all at once.

The idea of a population spreading 7000 miles, and it is not shown that it could even handle the climate of northern Asia, is silly.

 

There is no fossil evidence of a Giganto like creature anywhere north of China.  Let alone the additional 4000 miles from china to Siberia.

 

By your logic, Mountain Gorillas should have spread to Norway.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

this is a common misconception. Australians did not leave africa and walk to australia in one life time. It took many many generations to cover that distance.

 

 

Nor did I imply that they walked it all at once.

The idea of a population spreading 7000 miles, and it is not shown that it could even handle the climate of northern Asia, is silly.

 

There is no fossil evidence of a Giganto like creature anywhere north of China.  Let alone the additional 4000 miles from china to Siberia.

 

By your logic, Mountain Gorillas should have spread to Norway.

 

Not at all, otherwise no serious scientist would give the Giganto hypothesis time of day; and even those skeptical of it don't rule it out out of hand.

 

Absence of fossils only means the fossils haven't been found yet.  Given that most of Beringia isn't exactly conducive to fossil-hunting at the geological moment, we may never know from fossils whether this could have happened or not.

 

Be that as it may, the evidence indicates that higher primates may have gotten to North America somehow.  As no one can say exactly from where any species started that movement, and we are talking a very long time here, the Giganto hypothesis can't be discounted at the moment, proven or not.  In fact, less evidence exists to deny it than to consider it a possibility.

[dmaker]

So DWA,if the question of Sasquatch is open for you as you say, then you must disagree with Meldrum and Bindernagel who are clearly convinced the animal exists?

[norseman]

this is a common misconception. Australians did not leave africa and walk to australia in one life time. It took many many generations to cover that distance.

Nor did I imply that they walked it all at once.

The idea of a population spreading 7000 miles, and it is not shown that it could even handle the climate of northern Asia, is silly.

There is no fossil evidence of a Giganto like creature anywhere north of China. Let alone the additional 4000 miles from china to Siberia.

By your logic, Mountain Gorillas should have spread to Norway.

Well quadraped african apes spread to asia with "ape feet". That's not my own logic that just fact.

An orang along with all ape species have a African ancestor.

Also now your injecting a cold climate into the debate in a attempt to bolster your position. Im calling you on your flawed reasoning that apes with ape feet dont walk well, therefore they lack distrubution. The irony of it all is of course your talking about an extinct asian ape.

can you explain how asian apes got there from africa without the urge to travel? were they castaways on logs or?

[WSA]

Very succinctly put DWA. 

 

I think a lot of the rock fights here confuse something fundamental. Saying all (or even most of) the evidence has not been sufficiently explained is not a "position" on the existence of BF. It is not a "belief." It doesnt even need to be put in terms of probability (although I often just leave it as "more probable than not", the 51% threshhold).  It just is a statement of axiomatic truth. It doesn't even need to be couched as a scientifice position. You've got to be able to field that blazing ground ball, or just sit on the bench.

[Guest DWA]

So DWA,if the question of Sasquatch is open for you as you say, then you must disagree with Meldrum and Bindernagel who are clearly convinced the animal exists?

No.  See, life requires subtlety.  I know that's a bite.

 

When someone tells me they saw a sasquatch, and I listen to/read their report, and there is no reason to disregard it, I don't.  Doesn't mean it's proven to me.  Just means that no one has given me any reason to believe they are mistaken.

 

Just like no one has given me any reason to believe the proponent scientists are mistaken.  And until the skeptics prove to me that they're wrong, they have the upper hand in the discussion.  How it works.

 

Mind totally open.  Brains, though, NOT falling out.

[southernyahoo]

 

Three expeditions in a half-century - the only three ever, in fact

 

 

What's an expedition again? I don't think it takes 3 weeks or even one to encounter evidence of them. If you know where they are and what to look for you can have it the first night. Ask Bipto when he gets back