Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest Darrell]

"a deep seated fear of everything and anything that cannot be explained in materialist terms". LarryP

 

And how else would we explain it? Paranormally? Is it a cult now?

[Guest]

This is what I wrote:

 

"a deep seated fear of everything and anything that cannot be explained in materialist terms".

 

In other words, anything that falls outside their view of what they believe is "reality",  terrifies them.

 

It's classic example of normalcy bias, only on a grand scale.

I'm on the skeptical side of the Bigfoot issue but it has nothing to do with fear

I came to the subject wanting to believe but there hasn't been enough evidence that I've seen to convince me. I'm still open to the possibility but I personally need more.

So maybe this type of person exists who is skeptical about bigfoot because of fear but I don't see them joining a BF message board.

[Rockape]

"My point is that not all evidence has been proven to be man made, which was your assertion."  

 

Rock, that was not my assertion. I said all of the evidence that has had its source traced and proven has been wrong or fake. 

 

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. It is the nebulous  "proven bits of Bigfoot evidence"  statement that is in itself dishonest as there is no type specimen to trace evidence of something back to that might be bigfoot . We can show that often they are NOT bigfoot, but not in all cases.

 

However in those cases where a match is not found we can not say it is bigfoot. There are cases such as the Ohio State University study of the "Sumerlin hairs" which they would only allow as "unidentified primate". There was also a study done by Cliff Barackman of hairs found in Oklahoma that were too degraded from time and bad storage to where DNA could not be extracted. The PHD who did the testing did allow that while similar to humans they did not match. Further testing was inconclusive as to what their origin was.

 

So I would submit that there are "proven bits of Bigfoot evidence" in that there is evidence that can be tested, hard evidence that can be touched, seen, held and screened by scientific testing that shows an unknown. It has been presented as bigfoot evidence and while not shown to be bigfoot, it has not shown a negative either, so therefore we cannot say it is proven to be wrong or fake.

 

Saying you can't prove they do exist is no different than saying you can't prove they do not exist. Neither gets us anywhere when we have evidence of an unknown. What that is, we don't know, but it is evidence that does exist and hasn't been shown to be a mistake or fake. And while no, it is not proof, there is a difference between evidence and proof. Tracing it back to a type specimen is the ultimate requirement of proof but until we can, if ever, do so, it should not be dismissed as not being evidence.

 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

 

 

http://cliffbarackman.com/finding-bigfoot/finding-bigfoot-episode-guide/1035-2/finding-bigfoot-season-three-csi-bigfoot/

I'm on the skeptical side of the Bigfoot issue but it has nothing to do with fear

I came to the subject wanting to believe but there hasn't been enough evidence that I've seen to convince me. I'm still open to the possibility but I personally need more.

 

 

Agreed, there is some evidence I cannot readily dismiss, but no proof.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Rockape

[Guest]

I don't recall the name of the original scientist who said the hairs were unknown, but they were then sent to Ketchum for her study which in my mind rendered them virtually worthless, but still, they were not proven to be man made.

As for Meldrum, when a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates finds something interesting in the footprints, I have to give it credence.

As I say, none of this is proof bigfoot/yeti exists, that was not my point. My point is that not all evidence has been proven to be man made, which was your assertion.

The hair could still have been from a known animal

Don't they compare hair to samples they already have? It could just be hair from a part of the animal they don't have a sample for. Or it could be a wood ape...who knows.

Do you have any more on the Tom Slick yeti scat story. I'm intrigued.

[dmaker]

"Saying you can't prove they do exist is no different than saying you can't prove they do not exist"  Rockape

 

Respectfully, I must disagree. A claim is made, and if that claim is truly provable, then it must be proven within practical and accepted means. If you can't prove the claim, then it stands to reason that the claim is invalid. Particularly, I would think, when some of the evidence offered has been proven to be from sources other than the original claim. And also, I don't get on board with the idea that the remaining too ambiguous for identification evidence points to the original claim either. 

 

Most of my position involves offering alternate explanations since the original claim has not proven out. 

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

"So I would submit that there are "proven bits of Bigfoot evidence" in that there is evidence that can be tested, hard evidence that can be touched, seen, held and screened by scientific testing that shows an unknown. It has been presented as bigfoot evidence and while not shown to be bigfoot, it has not shown a negative either, so therefore we cannot say it is proven to be wrong or fake." 

 

This is what I am talking about . Failure to identify does not equal Bigfoot. It does not even equal, in my opinion, potentially Bigfoot. That just feels like grasping at straws and clinging to hope. Imagine this in a different scenario. A crime scene. Biological evidence is gathered, but it is too contaminated, or what have you, for any conclusive analysis. Does that put Bigfoot potentially at the scene of every crime where DNA analysis was too contaminated to make any kind of a positive conclusion?

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Rockape]

"Saying you can't prove they do exist is no different than saying you can't prove they do not exist"  Rockape

 

Respectfully, I must disagree. A claim is made, and if that claim is truly provable, then it must be proven within practical and accepted means. If you can't prove the claim, then it stands to reason that the claim is invalid. Particularly, I would think, when some of the evidence offered has been proven to be from sources other than the original claim. And also, I don't get on board with the idea that the remaining too ambiguous for identification evidence points to the original claim either. 

 

Most of my position involves offering alternate explanations since the original claim has not proven out. 

 

The context in which I said that was that it does nothing to move the ball forward either way, both are non-starters and they don't help us figure out just what it is we are questioning and does not offer anything further to settle a particular query on evidence.

 

 That just feels like grasping at straws and clinging to hope.

 

To you perhaps, for others it causes curiosity, opens possibilities and poses questions that need answers, one way or the other.

[dmaker]

" The context in which I said that was that it does nothing to move the ball forward either way, both are non-starters and they don't help us figure out just what it is we are questioning and does not offer anything further to settle a particular query on evidence."

 

Well that is, I suppose, where we differ greatly. I know you are moderate on this topic, and I appreciate that, but for me there really is no question. 

[Rockape]

The hair could still have been from a known animal

Don't they compare hair to samples they already have? It could just be hair from a part of the animal they don't have a sample for. Or it could be a wood ape...who knows.

 

 

It certainly could be I suppose. I do not have enough knowledge to say whether different parts of a strand of hair have different characteristics.

 

Do you have any more on the Tom Slick yeti scat story. I'm intrigued.

 

 

Just that it was collected by Tom Slick on one of his Yeti expeditions in 1959. If I recall Slick's story correctly his guide spotted the Yeti in a creekbed and they observed it for a short time. When it left they went to where it was, found prints and the scat. That is not certain proof that the scat came from the creature they claimed to observe.

 

I'm guessing that testing of fecal matter was very limited in 1959, but fecal floats tests have been used for a very long time and I have performed a few myself. What was found in this sample was an unknown parasite. Each species of animal on the planet has some species specific internal parasites, in other words, parasites that can live in and only occur in a specific species. So therefore this parasite being unknown can lead to a reasonable conclusion that it is from an unknown species.

 

That certainly doesn't mean however that it came from a Yeti or any other unknown creature, it could be from a known animal but the parasite itself could be rare enough to be unknown. Coleman still has what is left of the fecal sample, it is a small, around nickle size piece encased in plastic which he has on display in his museum. I do not know if he has attempted any more testing on it, but I would believe it is too degraded to be of any use.

 

Still, an interesting tale that is more than just another story. It doesn't do much other than add to the mystery however, but does show perhaps there are still unknowns.

 

See dmaker, that is what I mean by "better than you can't prove it is and you can't prove it isn't." Discussion with an open mind can lead to interesting possibilities. That doesn't mean you have to accept it as proof, or even true*. In this case I believe it is true, however in the end, it still goes in the "it doesn't prove anything" pile. But it is things like this that make me want to know more and leave open the possibility that these creatures could exist. It's better than "got monkey?" or "I got monkey, you can't see it".

 

 

* Just want to add I think it is true that they collected a sample with an unknown parasite, not that it is true Yeti exists.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Rockape

[JDL]

Been traveling.

 

It occurs to me:

 

1.  That I've known for a fact that bigfoot exist longer than some of our resident skeptics have existed.

2.  I'm here to share what I've experienced, learn from others who have also had encounters, and participate in discussions that are a step beyond whether or not they exist.

3.  Skeptics are a distraction, though fun to tweak.

4.  The skeptical opinion is nothing more than that, an opinion.  Skeptics have a belief system, nothing more, no matter how they rationalize.

5.  The gymnastics of rationalization are, in and of themselves, pseudoscience.

6.  No matter how authoritative a skeptic attempts to be, they're just another person with a subjective opinion.

7.  Perpetually foisted upon one, a subjective opinion can promote the desire for a mental shower.

8.  That I wish there were such a thing as a skeptic volume control.

9.  That a bigfoot, when facing away from you and bending over to observe you upside down through its own legs while pretending to be a stump bears a certain resemblance to Miley Cyrus.

[Guest DWA]

"Saying you can't prove they do exist is no different than saying you can't prove they do not exist"  Rockape

 

Respectfully, I must disagree. A claim is made, and if that claim is truly provable, then it must be proven within practical and accepted means. If you can't prove the claim, then it stands to reason that the claim is invalid.

That's dead wrong.

 

"There are extraterrestrial civilizations with technologies superior to our own."   "Somewhere in the universe there is an exact duplicate of Earth."

 

Can we prove those?  No.  (Yet.)  Are they invalid claims?  By no means.

 

This is what I am talking about . Failure to identify does not equal Bigfoot. It does not even equal, in my opinion, potentially Bigfoot. That just feels like grasping at straws and clinging to hope. Imagine this in a different scenario. A crime scene. Biological evidence is gathered, but it is too contaminated, or what have you, for any conclusive analysis. Does that put Bigfoot potentially at the scene of every crime where DNA analysis was too contaminated to make any kind of a positive conclusion?

Not even remotely close to what is being discussed here (although it does show how bedrock unacquainted one is with the evidence, and how doggedly persistent one can be in presuming that to be no problem).

 

The evidence that has not been proven a concoction is voluminous, consistent, and points uniformly to a biological source that is demonstrably plausible and for which people eminently qualified in relevant sciences vouch.  This is a fundamental point that couldn't be more plain, and with which most are simply not acquainted, and some simply seem either unable or unwilling to grasp.  Although it could appear that they are grasping at straws and clinging to hope, of some sort, for some reason.

Edited October 1, 2013 by DWA
To remove religious reference

[dmaker]

JDL, I like your numbered list. Only a couple really need any comment however:

1. A personal claim not currently backed up with evidence from you. So, I would say nice story bro, but it is simply a claim, and does not even rise to the level of interesting anecdote.

2. -8. Your observations on the discourse here are duly noted.

9. Now I have to say that I am impressed. I did not think that you had a sense of humour. You have proven me wrong, Sir. That was pretty funny actually. Well done!

Edited September 28, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

DWA, you should be more careful to note that I said if the claim is provable by accepted and PRACTICAL methods. Everything you chose to list does not follow with that. But thank-you for the smoke screen. Unless you are proposing that Bigfoot is somehow as hard to prove as a teapot in space? In which case, you might wish to move your argument to a different thread. Though I might caution you about brining up religion in the general forum. I think that is frowned upon.

For the rest of your input, as to the voluminous, consistent evidence that points to a biological source? Ok, where is that source? Where is this giant ape-man that runs around all corners of North America? If the evidence points to such an obvious and physical thing, then where is it? This very thread was started to discuss this obvious biological source you mention hanging around someone's backyard and raiding his apple trees just a few miles outside of Chicago. So if this so obvious source is that close to human populations, then why do we have no solid evidence? And by solid evidence I mean something, anything, that can be irrefutably, conclusively, linked to this, oh so obvious creature that is in our midst? I mean, we're not talking about a new species of mouse. We're talking about an 8 ft tall, several hundred pound predator. And it is in our backyards. I see small mammals in my backyard all the time. How are we possibly missing such a beast in our very midst?

One might argue that a consistent, voluminuous pile of manure is still, at the end of the day, just a big pile of turd.

Edited September 28, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Who's missing it?  Thousands are seeing it.  Why do you keep asking where it is?  They can tell you.  Your stamina is kind of amazing, though.

 

If I don't believe it, it isn't real.  Some stuff I gotta try that with.

 

Why should I believe you and not Lake County Bigfoot?  You still haven't given me a good answer to that.  And you still talk past the solid evidence.  That is interesting.

And I do like the Green Rock Game.  I just don't play it.

 

You didn't qualify your statement about invalid claims until I proved to you that it was, well, invalid.

[dmaker]

Thousands are claiming to see it, but not a single one is producing it. If it can't be demonstrably proven to be real, then yeah, I don't believe it. The fact that you do believe in something that has NEVER been demonstrated to be real is where I find the truly staggering stamina to be honest.

Why believe me over LCB? Don't, it's up to you. But a betting man would most wisely put his money where the results are, and right now Bigfoot has zero results. Hoaxes and misakes? Way better batting average than Bigfoot at this point. I mean anything higher than zero pretty much trumps zero.

Yes I did qualify my statement about invalid claims. It's in the very statement of mine that you quoted. Look upwards a bit. See it there? Quoted by yourself? All I did was repeat my statement that you had already quoted. Verbatim. Perhaps you should pay more attention to what you are quoting? Or will you somehow now try to back pedal out and pretend that I didn't say what you actually quoted? Good luck with that one..

I suspect that since you are now clearly caught in a logic trap of your own making that we won't hear from you for awhile. It's ok, not everyone can admit when they make a mistake...

Edited September 28, 2013 by dmaker