Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[dmaker]

Get used to it Darrell. It is LarryP's favorite barb. No matter how many times I have emphatically stated that I have no fear of Bigfoot being real, he continues to advance that ridiculous agenda that skeptics are afraid of our shadows. 

No worries Flashman, apology accepted and plussed!

Did I mention that I have pics?????

 

They exist, they eat, sleep, give birth, die, and they are the Boss of the Woods.  The hairy guys are way more adept at living in the woods than anyone here on this forum.

Have you made these pics available for all others to see?

 

I would imagine that not many people on this forum live in the woods. Electricity and Internet access can be tough to get when you live in a cave. 

[sheri]

Larry, fear has nothing to do with it. I have heard this from several people now. Before I saw one, I didn't believe. Even those incident's that happened could be explained away. It had nothing to do with fear. In all reality it is hard to believe.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I assume you some evidence to back up this subjective out of thin air pulled "fact"?

 

Thankfully, "boot cred" is pretty weak sauce when it comes to scientific evidence. That is, if we want to treat this scientifically, or we would all rather just gather around, make stuff up, and exchange campfire stories.  That is cool too, but let's not disguise it as something more serious.

 

While I get where you're coming from, isn't this what science does when it doesn't have all of the pieces to the puzzle, such as with "The Big Bang" and Evolution? No video evidence of macro-Evolution or the "bang," just a consensus viewpoint based on an interpretation of evidence presented. In fact, most who take this point of view haven't even interpreted said evidence for themselves, they've merely believed what others have interpreted before them. They gathered, made up stuff  - forming a consensus based on interpretations of others - and propagate their stories?

 

"It isn't far fetched to postulate..."

 

Yes it is. The whole rest of what followed that opener was far fetched in my opinion. Even if such a split took place, we have the technology and the brains to collect a Bigfoot. It's not their different evolutionary tack that makes them roam undiscovered, it is the fact that they do not exist. 

 

I suppose that there are other elements that don't exist based on this opinion, such as nothing that explodes to create all things by random chance. Evolution in and of itself, being unobservable during our very short lifespans - even over numerous generations, is pretty far-fetched based on the ability to observe it.

 

Funny, those holding a skeptical viewpoint in the name of science are free to postulate, speculate and any other "late" they care too so long as it's a consensus viewpoint, but not those who are proponents of anything this consensus disagrees with.

 

It's not my intention to spur a debate on the topics used as examples. Just stating my observations on the matter.

 

All of those who have sighted the creature are either lying, mistaken, hallucinating or under the influence because scientific consensus says it isn't possible. However, it's perfectly acceptable to promote scientific consensus without providing the very same that's expected of those making claims to the contrary of the majority. Why is that?

[Guest]

Yes. It's known as "Normalcy Bias".

 

Pseudo-skeptics suffer from an acute case of normalcy bias due to their deep seated fear of everything and anything that cannot be explained in materialist terms.

 

Larry, fear has nothing to do with it. I have heard this from several people now. Before I saw one, I didn't believe. Even those incident's that happened could be explained away. It had nothing to do with fear. In all reality it is hard to believe.

 

I would plus this if I had one left today.  Great post

 

It's so absurd to think that there is a significant group of people on this earth that actually fear the existence of bigfoot.  I'm sure someone actually does but it is possible that most people who don't believe base that on a lack of evidence that convinces them and not fear.

Edited September 27, 2013 by mbh

[dmaker]

I do see your points See. But I'm not really relying on the argument of consensus. I am simply saying that the evidence points to things like " All of those who have sighted the creature are either lying, mistaken, hallucinating or under the influence ..." , more than it points to a real creature. In fact 100% of the "proven" bits of Bigfoot evidence have proven one single source: people. People hoaxing, or mistaken, or otherwise.   Things that cannot be proven one way or the other because they are simply not testable ( i.e. witness reports) do not mean the creature is real simply because the evidence can not be tested or falsified. When compared, in my opinion, to the amount of evidence that has been proven to be from a hoaxed or mistaken source ( i.e. DNA testing done on samples), it seems somewhat naive to think that after this much time that the source of the non-testable evidence is a real creature when so much of the testable evidence constantly fails.

 

 So it's not a consensus of anyone's opinion but mine. It's based on what the evidence has shown to be true so far, and what it hasn't. And so far, of the evidence that can and has been tested, always comes up as a hoax or a mistake. Everything else is mostly anecdotal and does not allow for scientific testing. The weight of the evidence so far does not bear out the conclusion, as I see it, that there is a giant ape-man running amok in North America, including our backyards of suburbia. 

 

There is little that is ever offered here( the BFF)  than more anecdotal evidence. That is something the claim for Bigfoot does not need more of. There is plenty of that. Now I do understand that this is a discussion forum and that mostly what will be presented here is anecdotal. That is why, back in the beginning of my Bigfoot musings I sought out and followed recommendations for further reading. And after examining things more deeply, I became quite convinced of what I think the source of the phenomenon is, and sure is not a giant ape-man.

 

 

" Evolution in and of itself, being unobservable during our very short lifespans - even over numerous generations, is pretty far-fetched based on the ability to observe it."- See

 

I don't know that I would say evolution is unobservable, as you say, when we can examine fossil records and piece together a species evolution over time. But any deeper discussion on that and the origins of the universe hinted at in your post seem to me like they may veer off the rails as far as forum rules go and maybe we could discuss that in the Tar Pit?

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

We could do that. However, I worded my response very carefully to avoid any semblance of veering.

 

Fossil evidence is discovered. It's just bones, yet they're all somehow links in the evolutionary chain used to prove a consensus viewpoint. There's no way that they could simply be extinct creatures of their own specific type because they've been built up for use by scientific consensus, having no proof of how the animal lived, what it ate or its traits. Yet science has no issue telling us all about these creatures and how they lived based on pure speculation and postulation.

 

That's all I'm trying to say. Science seems to get a pass for doing as the skeptical do all the time. Somehow we're supposed to believe their "reports" because the scientific consensus tell us to.

[dmaker]

Well, again, I am not really arguing from a point of consensus as I have explained. My conclusions are based on what I have read from both camps. 

 

As far as evolution goes, (unless I am misunderstanding you) if you are arguing against it, then you must be arguing for....?  That was what I meant by me being wary of the rules. However, the main thrust of your argument is, as I see it, that scientific consensus can be wrong. Regardless of whatever theory you want to use an example. Ok fine. I have no problem with that at all. Of course scientific consensus can be wrong, and probably quite often is wrong. In the case of Bigfoot, I don't know that there is even really enough decent evidence in play for there to be a studied consensus. There are just about zero peer reviewed papers on Bigfoot. Not that peer review in itself produces or indicates a consensus. It simply means that the evidence in the claim is worthy of being considered as I understand the process. Scientists will often disagree on things that pass peer review.  

 

So I think this "scientific consensus" that is invoked in regards to Bigfoot is not really that so much as it is more of a general reluctance to examine something that has yet to provide enough compelling evidence to make it worth examining. No one is presenting evidence for peer review for Bigfoot probably because anyone that would want to do so knows in advance the evidence is not compelling enough yet to warrant the reaction they seek. 

 

I think of it more like this: Science is not saying Bigfoot does not exist. Science is saying there is not enough compelling evidence to warrant even an investigation at this point.  

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I'm not making any claim as to what anyone should believe. As you stated earlier, that's Pit material.

 

Again, this isn't really about Evolution as much as it's about believing something based on "evidence," or the lack thereof. After all, if science can form a consensus belief based on something observed, why can't people that have observed these creatures do likewise, regardless of whether they witness it in and urban or rural setting? Constantly telling folks that they didn't see what they saw doesn't make it true.

 

My own mother witnessed one of these creatures. Is she a drunk, hallucinating or mistaken? I suppose it's possible for her to have been mistaken, but it's also possible that she saw exactly what she claims. As for whatever reason you want to assert, you weren't there, so you really don't know what she saw any more than you can state for certain that the science and its consensus viewpoint that you rely on is correct because you weren't there to witness those claims, either.

 

I respect your opinion, but for you to dismiss the claims of others because they lack the proof you require is simply implying that they are either stupid or untruthful. While I'm sure that some of those claims could be bogus, the odds that they're all false are minimal.

[dmaker]

"Constantly telling folks that they didn't see what they saw doesn't make it true."  Very true, as is the reverse. Constantly telling folks that you saw something and then offering no evidence to support that claim....well, we know where that gets one.

 

 

"My own mother witnessed one of these creatures. Is she a drunk, hallucinating or mistaken? "  I don't know, but more importantly I cannot know. There is no practical way to answer that question or suss out the truth. The experience of the witness is subjective and not verifiable--two things that are outside of  the scientific process. That is the problem with anecdotal evidence. It is simply not testable. As such, it is not evidence that can be used in the scientific process or discourse. All scientific evidence must be testable. Witness reports are not.  Note that is not the same thing as saying they are useless. If one believes in the beast and wants to try and find one, then naturally witness reports would be of value to the hunter. However, when discussing scientific evidence, they are irrelevant.

 

"I respect your opinion, but for you to dismiss the claims of others because they lack the proof you require is simply implying that they are either stupid or untruthful. While I'm sure that some of those claims could be bogus, the odds that they're all false are minimal"  Thank-you, I respect your opinion and the way you present it as well. But you are injecting a bit of personal incredulity into your logic. The odds that they are all false are calculated how exactly?  That is simply your personal bias and beliefs allowing you to reason out a way that Bigfoot reports can be genuine. When, again, as noted above, they are irrelevant to a scientific discourse. So assign whatever odds you feel comfortable with. Respectfully, it makes little difference. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^See, this approach is what I call Fourth-Grade Science Fair Science.

 

With modifications, it is most of the science that is practiced, to wit:  take this thing you know, add this thing you know,...and here's another thing you now know.

 

What the mainstream has trouble with is true unknowns, when they can use nothing that they currently accept as proven, but must work with things that they simply don't accept because of pre-existing biases that aren't driven by evidence, but rather by their refusal to even consider evidence on the sole grounds that it's inconclusive.

 

Now of course, they constantly consider inconclusive evidence - as a "lead" to further possibilities, which is what scientists are supposed to do - when it stems from things they accept.  Science would be unable to progress were that not the case.  They just can't see that in this case, they're working from a priori biases that just might be wrong.

Edited September 27, 2013 by DWA

[Rockape]

In fact 100% of the "proven" bits of Bigfoot evidence have proven one single source: people. People hoaxing, or mistaken, or otherwise.  

 

That is not true, hair samples have been found (Josh Gates and a few others) that have not been identified with a known creature and Loren Coleman is in possession of a fecal sample collected by Tom Slick who obtained it after observing a creature said to be a Yeti, and the sample shows a parasite not known to exist in any other animal. There are also footprints such as those in possession of Jeff Meldrum that have not been proved to be false.

 

So while they are not proof of Bigfoot/Yeti, they have not been shown to be false/man made.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

All scientific evidence must be testable.

 

So, is all scientific evidence testable? It certainly can be tested, but scientific consensus is not always testable. If it were, there would be no further need for science to constantly revise its findings upon each new discovery to the contrary, such as in the case of the coelacanth. Science made some very grand claims concerning its extinction some 65 million years ago. Text books in our schools taught such as fact, even claiming it left its watery home, walking on its bony lobes to eventually develop lungs and to be an integral part of the Evolutionary scheme. Funny, someone forgot to inform the coelacanth of this "fact." It still swims today in the same form as its "Evolutionary" fossils despite the claims of the scientific community years ago.

 

Tell me, dmaker - Was that scientific consensus, presented as evidence, testable? If so, was it done properly?

[dmaker]

"What the mainstream has trouble with is true unknowns, when they can use nothing that they currently accept as proven, but must work with things that they simply don't accept because of pre-existing biases that aren't driven by evidence, but rather by their refusal to even consider evidence on the sole grounds that it's inconclusive." DWA

 

Except for recent examples where Nature examined Ketchum's paper and passed it along for peer review? I see no refusal to consider evidence present there.  Care to try again?

That is not true, hair samples have been found (Josh Gates and a few others) that have not been identified with a known creature and Loren Coleman is in possession of a fecal sample collected by Tom Slick who obtained it after observing a creature said to be a Yeti, and the sample shows a parasite not known to exist in any other animal. There are also footprints such as those in possession of Jeff Meldrum that have not been proved to be false.

 

So while they are not proof of Bigfoot/Yeti, they have not been shown to be false/man made.

 

Rock, how are foot prints truly testable? How can one irrefutably demonstrate a footprint came from a Bigfoot? If that was possible, it would have been done by now. Footprints have been proven to be hoaxed though.  Others must simply be too ambiguous to prove anything. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation and Meldrum would be sitting on the laurels of his many peer reviewed publications on the universally accepted veracity of Bigfoot tracks.  That is not happening...

 

Hair not identified with a known creature does not equal Bigfoot. Could you please link to the published study results for this hair claim?

So, is all scientific evidence testable? It certainly can be tested, but scientific consensus is not always testable. If it were, there would be no further need for science to constantly revise its findings upon each new discovery to the contrary, such as in the case of the coelacanth. Science made some very grand claims concerning its extinction some 65 million years ago. Text books in our schools taught such as fact, even claiming it left its watery home, walking on its bony lobes to eventually develop lungs and to be an integral part of the Evolutionary scheme. Funny, someone forgot to inform the coelacanth of this "fact." It still swims today in the same form as its "Evolutionary" fossils despite the claims of the scientific community years ago.

 

Tell me, dmaker - Was that scientific consensus, presented as evidence, testable? If so, was it done properly?

 

 

You bring up a good point See. The coelacanth was thougt to be extinct, yes. I do not really see this as a win for the Footer argument though. We had record of its existence. We had lots of fossils in its range. We have nothing of the sort for Bigfoot. Yes the consensus was wrong on the coelacanth. If you scroll up like 3 or 4 posts you will see where I freely admitted that scientific consensus can be, and probably often is, wrong. 

 

Was the consensus of the extinction of the coelacanth testable? Sure it was. It was as testable as the consensus for the extinction of T-Rex. Evidence of absence. That is how extinction is measured by science. You go look in places where something should be and if it is repeatedly not there, nor is there sign of its passing, then the consensus is that it is extinct. Is this infallible?  Obviously not. Does that mean we should launch T-Rex expeditions?  Absolutely not. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

That is not true, hair samples have been found (Josh Gates and a few others) that have not been identified with a known creature and Loren Coleman is in possession of a fecal sample collected by Tom Slick who obtained it after observing a creature said to be a Yeti, and the sample shows a parasite not known to exist in any other animal. There are also footprints such as those in possession of Jeff Meldrum that have not been proved to be false.

 

So while they are not proof of Bigfoot/Yeti, they have not been shown to be false/man made.

 

This is a constantly-repeated - and demonstrably wrong - bigfoot-skeptic shibboleth, that everything that's been found can be traced to people.  These examples are a tiny fragment of the evidence found for which no other proven or potential source has been identified.  In other words, it's inconclusive - and the onus is not on the proponents to prove what it is, but on the mainstream, because proof is their job.

 

In no other field are the amateurs held to come up with the proof while the mainstream scratches its [whoopee cushions].    In all other scientific fields, amateurs turn over leads to the pros, who kick Pluto out of the planet club.  (To cite only one example.)

 

The mainstream has a mountain of leads...and has utterly abdicated its job to follow them up.

 

Now dmaker isn't, of course, saying that all evidence is phony.  He's saying that everything that has been proven to be something has been proven to be phony.

 

Which is irrelevant, because the mountain of inconclusive leads remains to be examined, and is different, in consistent ways, from the stuff proven to be phony.

 

NAWAC will likely have us a slab ape by fall of next year, so by then all this should be moot.  Then the mainstream can catch up on the half-century of research out of which it's cheated itself by its negligence and laziness.

 

And of course they'll take all the credit for a job done for them.  But hasn't that happened before.

[dmaker]

" NAWAC will likely have us a slab ape by fall of next year, so by then all this should be moot.  Then the mainstream can catch up on the half-century of research out of which it's cheated itself by its negligence and laziness." -DWA

 

That would be great Dee-dub.  But while I remain unmoved by contemporary anecdotes, I am even less impressed by subjective, futuristic predictions.

 

But I will be sure to come back in 5 or 10 years and see how far you have moved those rather clear goal posts.  

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker