Makes No Sense...

[chelefoot]

 

Well, analysis shows that the Brown thermal, if a person, is one of the largest-ever members of our species, hiding in dense woods strewn with all kinds of stuff one does not want to step on, after midnight, without a light, taking one of the largest steps ever taken into the unknown, to wit, a square foot of ground most of a body length away, possibly populated by a water moccasin, a copperhead or a very nasty plant or some such, but who would know without a light.

 

That's believing in something, all right.

 

What analysis is that? I remember it being shown on Finding Bigfoot and threads here about it, but if there is a more professional analysis available somewhere on that thermal footage, I would be happy to follow a link and read it.

 

Oh...you need to read Cliff analysis! Let me find it....

http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/

 

 

There ya go DM. Let me know what you think...

[Guest]

^^^Only researchers are dealing in evidence, and bigfoot skeptics aren't.

 

Depends on what researcher(s) you're talking about. I don't have the desire anymore to get into these debates BUT - I will say this.. ANYONE can call themselves a Researcher, Habituator, Skeptic or Expert -- there are no qualifications for any of those titles. Skeptics do have something of value to offer to those in the field - it's called constructive criticism. We can either accept it - work with it - or not. I choose to listen to Skeptics who offer constructive criticism. Researchers who are in the field collecting evidence ( yes I said evidence NOT proof ) ALSO have something of value to contribute. Lets face it, without audio, photos, reports or personal experiences there would be nothing to talk about. How to get these two groups together for meaningful conversation seems to be the hard part. 

 

Just an observation - I will be moving along now  

[dmaker]

 

Yes, chelefoot I do.

Cliff Barackman went out to the Brown site and did a breakdown of that video that did show some of what DWA said to be true. There is no way humanly possible that the subject of that video could be a person. Have you seen that? Do you agree with at least that much? That the subject is not a person?

 

If you haven't seen it, no worries. I am just curious about how someone takes a very good piece of evidence and dismisses it as a hoax or mid-ID - without the slightest bit of wonder....

 

Has there ever been a piece of evidence - video, audio, pic...anything - that has made you pause and go , "Hmmmmm". ?

 

I can't say what it is in that thermal footage, and I do not rule out human. The figure is humanoid in appearance. You say it was in no way possible that it could be human. I am not saying that it is, but it has not been proven that it would be impossible beyond all doubt. Even in Cliff's statements he says on more than one occasion that there is difficulty in accurately estimating the dimensions of the figure in this footage. He points that out quite clearly, and to his credit. And in his conclusion he says  "While the results of my calculations are only approximations of the creature’s size, it is clear that the figure is very large"  He then provides an estimate of 8.5 feet tall and 4 feet wide. Yes, that, if accurate, should rule out human pretty much. But he cautions quite clearly that these are estimates and that accuracy in this particular case is an issue. I would not say that slam dunks this into the " no way humanly possible" category.  But again, I am not saying that it is human.  Unless you are basing your comments on some other documentation of the footage? In which case, yes I would be interested in reading that too.

 

The footage is pretty cool. It's up there with my top 5 BF videos. As in they are not laughable hoaxes like the recent Larry whatshisname old man squatch video or something. But are examples of great footage that are vague enough as to not convince me of anything. Which sums up a lot of BF evidence sadly. And in the absence of anything that does confirm BF, anything that comes up as vague, or bloby, or questionalbe, further bolsters, for me, the notion that BF is not real.

[norseman]

Something tells me that Dmaker isn't going to find that compelling........

[Guest DWA]

^^^...and no shocker there.

 

^^^Only researchers are dealing in evidence, and bigfoot skeptics aren't.

 

Depends on what researcher(s) you're talking about. I don't have the desire anymore to get into these debates BUT - I will say this.. ANYONE can call themselves a Researcher, Habituator, Skeptic or Expert -- there are no qualifications for any of those titles. Skeptics do have something of value to offer to those in the field - it's called constructive criticism. We can either accept it - work with it - or not. I choose to listen to Skeptics who offer constructive criticism. Researchers who are in the field collecting evidence ( yes I said evidence NOT proof ) ALSO have something of value to contribute. Lets face it, without audio, photos, reports or personal experiences there would be nothing to talk about. How to get these two groups together for meaningful conversation seems to be the hard part. 

 

Just an observation - I will be moving along now

 

Well, yeah.  As I have said here:  I've given the Facepalm Award to more than one researcher.  And credentials ...well if you aren't Krantz, Meldrum or Bindernagel, and a select few other names that are largely seen in their books, your odds of relevant credentials...let's just say they go down.

 

I am all ears for any skeptic who is truly skeptical, i.e., questions all comfortable assumptions including "this isn't real."

 

I didn't get here believing.  I got here following evidence, and tend to truck with those who do the same.

[dmaker]

I am all ears for any skeptic who is truly skeptical, i.e., questions all comfortable assumptions including "this isn't real." -DWA

 

Uh, no you are not. You have already said that there is one conclusion allowed here, and it's yours. 

 

Well I for one am not going to participate in a conversation where you get to decide the correctness of everyone else's opinions based on how much they mirror your own. No point in it. 

[Guest DWA]

There is only one conclusion allowed here!  AND IT IS MINE:

 

The provenance of the sasquatch evidence is a serious scientific question and deserves serious scientific attention.

 

Any other dmaker, I, er, mean, conclusion? 

 

Close-minded in the extreme.

 

Thank you.

 

Drop out any time you like.  I'm good.

 

The evidence determines what is serious, and not.  Not my opinion, and not yours.

[dmaker]

If you take away the unscientific evidence, i.e. the unfalsifiable evidence ( all of the eye witness reports, all of the legends, anything oral really), you are left with tracks and samples. The samples have only ever come back as bear, or dog or carpet, or contaminated and therefore not classifiable ( read: not unknown primate as Footers like to call it).   Trackways have been proven to be faked ( even Drs. Krantz and Meldrum have fallen for some). In fact, of the falsifiable evidence ( the only kind that should be considered in a scientific discussion) a fair chunk of it has been falsified. But not a single piece of it has been verified.

 

Just saying. Since we're all about the scientific evidence in this discussion. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

One can't dismiss the eyewitness testimony.

 

(And one can falsify it.  One can prove that this person saw not what they say they saw, but rather this specific something else.  To say otherwise is to say:  we can't deny they saw that, nor can we act as if they didn't.)

 

(Said otherwise:  that lies, craziness and mistakes exist in the world does not prove you are a liar; that you are crazy; or that you made a mistake.)

 

One assumption is basic to human survival (think about it for a minute): 

 

if there is no reason to disbelieve someone, believe them.

 

(Try getting through a week - a day - in which you never do that, once.)

 

That alone makes dismissing the eyewitness testimony as un-scientific as dismissing anything else.  One cannot take it for proof; but one is forbidden by the rules of science from dismissing it.  It is most certainly falsifiable evidence.

[norseman]

If you take away the unscientific evidence, i.e. the unfalsifiable evidence ( all of the eye witness reports, all of the legends, anything oral really), you are left with tracks and samples. The samples have only ever come back as bear, or dog or carpet, or contaminated and therefore not classifiable ( read: not unknown primate as Footers like to call it).   Trackways have been proven to be faked ( even Drs. Krantz and Meldrum have fallen for some). In fact, of the falsifiable evidence ( the only kind that should be considered in a scientific discussion) a fair chunk of it has been falsified. But not a single piece of it has been verified.

 

Just saying. Since we're all about the scientific evidence in this discussion. 

 

Ok............hold on. What about Video and Audio recordings? Has the PGF ever been proven a hoax? Did some body come forward with THE suit? No. Bill Munns says it's real...........some other Hollywood Special effects guys say it's a hoax. But none of them will agree to debate Bill over the facts. So Bill is the only expert who has dug that deep into the film and finds it credible.

 

So we actually have Video, Audio, Tracks and samples............

 

And some tracks and some samples have defied explanation as well. Hair samples that look surprisingly human but would be feral. And trackways with very long strides they are not close to a road (so that your buddy cannot pull you with a rope).

 

How do we verify evidence? The only way we are going to do that is place the foot into the cast! That requires a body...........

 

But to simply state that all evidence is simply junk is absolutely untrue. 

[dmaker]

One can't dismiss the eyewitness testimony.

 

(And one can falsify it.  One can prove that this person saw not what they say they saw, but rather this specific something else.  To say otherwise is to say:  we can't deny they saw that, nor can we act as if they didn't.)

 

(Said otherwise:  that lies, craziness and mistakes exist in the world does not prove you are a liar; that you are crazy; or that you made a mistake.)

 

One assumption is basic to human survival (think about it for a minute): 

 

if there is no reason to disbelieve someone, believe them.

 

(Try getting through a week - a day - in which you never do that, once.)

 

That alone makes dismissing the eyewitness testimony as un-scientific as dismissing anything else.  One cannot take it for proof; but one is forbidden by the rules of science from dismissing it.  It is most certainly falsifiable evidence.

One cannot accept the eye witness reports if you are talking about scientific evidence. It does not qualify as such.  And no, contrary to your thinking, it is not falsifiable. It may be falsifiable in principle, but not in practice. It is not testable, therefore not falsifiable no matter what you say. One cannot travel back in time and identify a creature or shadow that someone claimed to see. That should be obvious. So your claim that eye witness reports are testable or falsifiable is just plain wrong. 

 

Sure they exist, but in a scientific discussion ( which you love to claim this is) they have no real place as scientific evidence for the reasons I have already stated. Falsifiability, by the way, is a criterion held up by the US Supreme court as a qualifier for scientific evidence. So unless Bigfoot gets special consideration for some reason that I am not aware of, let's stop pretending that the reports are testable in any real way, or constitute scientific evidence. They do not. 

[Guest DWA]

Um, that's wrong, and I just said why.

 

So let's stop hijacking the thread and move on to other stuff.  This is an agree-to-disagree moment.

[Guest Grifter9931]

This is not a discussion about if BF is around. Most here take it on a belief system that we are not alone. And something rather large is out in the forest. What I am asking is, if you are in contact or have them visiting regularly why not share it with the very same people who share the same vigor and excitement for this creature?

 

And if you chose not to share that experience, then why share any at all? 

And if you choose to not participate, like the some fisherman/sailors who are witness to giant sharks etc or the loggers who for the most part say nothing of their personal BF adventures. Then that is totally reasonable, its a private part of your world. 

[dmaker]

 

If you take away the unscientific evidence, i.e. the unfalsifiable evidence ( all of the eye witness reports, all of the legends, anything oral really), you are left with tracks and samples. The samples have only ever come back as bear, or dog or carpet, or contaminated and therefore not classifiable ( read: not unknown primate as Footers like to call it).   Trackways have been proven to be faked ( even Drs. Krantz and Meldrum have fallen for some). In fact, of the falsifiable evidence ( the only kind that should be considered in a scientific discussion) a fair chunk of it has been falsified. But not a single piece of it has been verified.

 

Just saying. Since we're all about the scientific evidence in this discussion. 

 

Ok............hold on. What about Video and Audio recordings? Has the PGF ever been proven a hoax? Did some body come forward with THE suit? No. Bill Munns says it's real...........some other Hollywood Special effects guys say it's a hoax. But none of them will agree to debate Bill over the facts. So Bill is the only expert who has dug that deep into the film and finds it credible.

 

So we actually have Video, Audio, Tracks and samples............

 

And some tracks and some samples have defied explanation as well. Hair samples that look surprisingly human but would be feral. And trackways with very long strides they are not close to a road (so that your buddy cannot pull you with a rope).

 

How do we verify evidence? The only way we are going to do that is place the foot into the cast! That requires a body...........

 

But to simply state that all evidence is simply junk is absolutely untrue. 

 

Audio evidence does seem to be testable, yes. And in fact many times it is tested and fails. As in someone identifies it as some other animal, be it fox, coyote, etc. So yes, audio is testable and falsifiable. 

 

Video seems a bit trickier to me. If we were looking at video of known species then it seems pretty simple. Example: here is some awesome video I captured while fishing of a Great White shark swimming around my boat. An expert says cool, can I see it? Looks at it and says, sorry that is just a large mako. Easy mistake they are both mackerel sharks and they have pretty similar appearances. Second opinions may be sought, but anyone who knows the animals well will come to the same conclusion.  Even if the case is extremely rare, forensic experts can be called upon to examine the photo or video footage for tampering.  When dealing with an unknown or putative species, it's pretty trick in my opinion. And this gets into the testability of the evidence. Some will look at the PGF and say fake, others will say real. There are no experts to call in to identify the subject.  So that best option available in most cases is gone. So where does that leave us as far as falsifiability goes? Well can it be tested? Can someone actually prove that Patty is a man in a suit? Without travelling back in time and exposing it, no I do not think that anyone can. We can red crayon this and red crayon that, and talk about this math and that math and no one could walk this way or fit in that, but that is never conclusive or unanimous. So ultimately Patty as a suit is not falsifiable. It cannot be truly tested. It's video footage of something, but what? A man in a suit? Yeah, this is my opinion. Can it be absolutely proven as such? No, I don't think so. Can it be absolutely proven that it was a BF? No, of course not. Maybe if at some point in the future a BF specimen was obtained and we could compre the footage to a live animal, then maybe at that point a definitive conclusion could be made on that footage. I

Um, that's wrong, and I just said why.

 

So let's stop hijacking the thread and move on to other stuff.  This is an agree-to-disagree moment.

No, it's not. But that is the way you always react when proven to be wrong. 

This is not a discussion about if BF is around. Most here take it on a belief system that we are not alone. And something rather large is out in the forest. What I am asking is, if you are in contact or have them visiting regularly why not share it with the very same people who share the same vigor and excitement for this creature?

 

And if you chose not to share that experience, then why share any at all? 

And if you choose to not participate, like the some fisherman/sailors who are witness to giant sharks etc or the loggers who for the most part say nothing of their personal BF adventures. Then that is totally reasonable, its a private part of your world. 

 

You're right Grifter. Let's veer back on topic. I think I know why habituators offer no evidence, but the rules of the General forum prevent me from stating my opinion on that.

Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker

[GuyInIndiana]

And if you chose not to share that experience, then why share any at all? 

And if you choose to not participate, like the some fisherman/sailors who are witness to giant sharks etc or the loggers who for the most part say nothing of their personal BF adventures. Then that is totally reasonable, its a private part of your world. 

 

I'm not asking this out of frustration, but a sincere desire to understand why you seem frustrated with people who won't behave in a manner that makes you comfortable.

 

Why do you (or anyone else for that purpose) get to decide how everyone else, witness, researcher, investigator, habituator, is allowed to participate in the highly undefined world of "bigfooting"? Why are they obligated to "do it this way or not at all"?