Using Game Cams As An Excuse For No Existance

[Guest Divergent1]

Whether you are a pro or con bigfoot supporter really makes no difference here, we all know that a body, or piece of a body is what it will take to prove the existence of bigfoot. That said, you are correct that the current state of things isn't really about ptoof per se but whether what evidence out there increases the probabilty for the existence of bigfoot.

 

Here is where I find the flaw in your logic. The frequency and coherency of reports only suggests a pattern, it doesn't indicate what was actually seen, even with those that have face to face encounters with the creature. You could have three people have the same sighting and they will all report something slightly different whether it's bigfoot or any other incident. That IS scientifically proven which makes the frequency argument less valid.

 

A foot print is genuine forensic evidence, but evidence of what? Those footprints may or may not be from bigfoot. I will give more credence to prints found in remote areas that are larger than a bear could make, even overlapping as they commonly do that can be misleading, than I would with a set of prints in an area that is more populated. That does decrease the chance of hoaxing, but it still doesn't confirm or provide assertion for the existence of bigfoot.

 

So if you think I'm wrong, why don't we use a logic model template to map out our stances. That way each step can be be analyzed for conformity with adhereing to  scientific processes and principles. It isn't a "right or wrong" exercise, but it might provide clarity and guidance to some forum members on what the weight of each argument for or against bigfoot's existence really means.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Divergent1

[norseman]

Again we have trail camera hits, just like we have video.

What difference does it make? If the PGF is not going to sway you? Nothing will...,,.other than a slab monkey.

If your goal is to prove the species to be real? You best not be investing a lot of time and energy in this medium, unless it's helping you bag one.

Sorry it is what it is!

[Guest Divergent1]

I'm just discussing the quality of the evidence with DWA. I can see how it would be irrelevant to someone who has had a face to face sighting but not in any other circumstance.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Several captures have been had with game cams, including the juvenile that is standing over the bait, and I think several

others with lesser amounts of the body.  The adults simply know when one is in the area, and that is a mystery at this point.

I know that deer and other animals spook from the IR, it is obvious in my photos that they are aware of it and move on...the

skeptics will always find a way to dismiss the obvious, even when it placed right in front of their face.  Like this photo here,

it is probably Heironimus's grandson in a suit shown below.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest thermalman]

One of the more contentious " BF" photos ever!

[Guest DWA]

Whether you are a pro or con bigfoot supporter really makes no difference here, we all know that a body, or piece of a body is what it will take to prove the existence of bigfoot. That said, you are correct that the current state of things isn't really about ptoof per se but whether what evidence out there increases the probabilty for the existence of bigfoot.

 

Well, not so much.  What I am really saying is that the evidence out there is sufficient, right now, to justify a full-court field press for proof.  We are aware of no other cases - ever - in which we have this large a quantity of consistent observations of a natural phenomenon yet unproven, observations that keep coming in and keep showing the same consistency, backed by this large a quantity of  consistent forensic evidence (footprints), that also keep coming in, further bolstered by a film that ties the two together as neatly as could possibly be done, a film all technical analysis of which has come back:  authentic.  (The skeptical "analyses" analyze the skeptics' bias, largely speaking to their incredulity and Patterson's character, not what is seen on the film.) 

 

 

Here is where I find the flaw in your logic. The frequency and coherency of reports only suggests a pattern, it doesn't indicate what was actually seen, even with those that have face to face encounters with the creature. You could have three people have the same sighting and they will all report something slightly different whether it's bigfoot or any other incident. That IS scientifically proven which makes the frequency argument less valid.

 

Actually, yes, it does indicate what was actually seen; this is what the consistent observations of great-ape morphology and behavior are all about.  If three people are reporting something "slightly" different, that can speak to the differences one would expect between individuals, both sasquatch (seen) and human (what they noticed/what they reported).  It doesn't discount what witnesses say they saw.  We know that different people will report the same things in different ways, for a variety of reasons.  This is what makes the consistency so remarkable, to those of us who have actually read the reports, and almost totally impossible to chalk up to hallucination or mistaken ID.    If you read the reports it is abundantly clear that "copycatting" isn't happening; people just aren't that good, and to assume they are - that they can plant all of this nuance that speaks to actual wildlife experience into a false report, and thousands of them can do this, for no discernible reason that would make sense to most of us - is to assume that something is going on the likes of which our species has no prior record of doing, ever.  And THIS - an eight-foot bipedal ape - is what we think would be the one thing in the history of our species we are doing this with?

 

A simple courtroom example of your thinking:  I'm a defense lawyer.  You have a witness who saw my client leaving the bank with the money.  I say to the judge:  we are in agreement that people can be mistaken in what they see, that their report doesn't always indicate what was actually seen.  Right?  The judge says, yes.  Now I've got him!  "Then, Your Honor, I move that the court strike prosecution witness's testimony from the record!  She could be mistaken!"  Of course that is not what happens.  The most thorough examination possible attempts to verify or refute the eyewitness's testimony.  One big difference:  they won't find the bank robbery happening again, absent truly unusual circumstances.  We can find the ape.  Just go on field stakeout in places where they are being seen.  NAWAC is doing that, and they  - just like the everyday Joes and Janes who keep on reporting sightings - are seeing them.  They think they're about THIS close to bagging one.  No one has come up with a halfway decent reason to doubt them...nor any money to get them out there more often.

 

A foot print is genuine forensic evidence, but evidence of what? Those footprints may or may not be from bigfoot. I will give more credence to prints found in remote areas that are larger than a bear could make, even overlapping as they commonly do that can be misleading, than I would with a set of prints in an area that is more populated. That does decrease the chance of hoaxing, but it still doesn't confirm or provide assertion for the existence of bigfoot.

 

It's genuine forensic evidence of an unknown primate, so far as we can determine short of fieldwork to ascertain what is making the tracks.  This is the very thing experts are saying:  this is a primate; it's not human; and it's not a fake.  How much farther can one go with this...short of finding what is leaving the tracks?

 

So if you think I'm wrong, why don't we use a logic model template to map out our stances. That way each step can be be analyzed for conformity with adhereing to  scientific processes and principles. It isn't a "right or wrong" exercise, but it might provide clarity and guidance to some forum members on what the weight of each argument for or against bigfoot's existence really means.

 

What I guess I'm saying is you're proposing a parlor game; and we're well past that point.  We should be doing...well, what NAWAC is doing:  long-term field stakeouts, using the tools and techniques of field primatology, to follow up evidence as close to conclusive as evidence has ever been, for anything ever, short of proof (essentially a formality at this point). There is no reason to believe that the relevant witnesses or expert testimony on the forensic evidence are taken as a whole wrong, and every reason to believe that we are on the right track.  Scientists need to end the parlor games and devote serious money and time to getting on the right track.  Says here:  if NAWAC is seeing what they are seeing, on what could charitably be called a part-time basis...well, I shouldn't need to finish the sentence.

[Guest Divergent1]

In the other thread we are talking about UFO's and bigfoot, I would say UFO sightings are a better example of an unacknowledged phenomena. They are seen by numerous people unknown to each other in wide swaths of area, sometimes over several 100's of miles. UFO's do leave physical evidence behind at times and they are seen by pilots, law enforcement, and military personnel more often than bigfoot. These are people who are trained to pay attention to their surroundings making them better witnesses IMO.

 

I disagree with you on the quality of witness testimony. I think you need to take in consideration a lot of other variables such as who is doing the interview with the witness. There is this other thread about some pics captured by a little boy and I can certainly tell you I wasn't impressed with that researcher's technique, however, I think the kid did see something. Of course the image is blurry as usual. But most sightings don't have video, pics, or prints to back up the testimony.  Even with these present the evidence for bigfoot would only be of probative value, at best , if you are using the legal system as the standard.

 

I guess we will have to disagree on what foot prints indicate. Unless you saw what made the print, captured a pic/ video, or shot the creature that left the print you can't say for certain that it indicates the existence of some unknown primate. It could very easily be a lizard man for all we know.

 

I think you have more faith in NAWAC than I do. I've read and heard where the group was very close to accomplishing something, anything, for years yet  that something never happens. I'll believe in the wood ape when I see a video of it on a slab with the accompanying autopsy and DNA report.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Divergent1

[Guest DWA]

Actually, a salient aspect of sasquatch eyewitness testimony is the high percentage of sightings by people well qualified as witnesses.  So that's not really working as a disqualifier

 

Picking apart eyewitness reports is a nonstarter, unless it can be proven the witness was wrong.  What makes the consistency so remarkable is the reports as they stand; that consistency is coming from somewhere, and reading the reports with lots of relevant experience, one can conclude that it's coming not from the eyewitnesses but from the thing they independently saw.

 

Again, if experts in reading footprints as forensic evidence are saying "these aren't human, and I can see no way they were faked," the way to read them isn't "they MUST HAVE been faked."

 

My voucher for NAWAC has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with the people and the evidence.  I know them personally.  Alton Higgins would scream "scientist!" to you just seeing him across a Wal-Mart parking lot.  If he says he's seen one, no one has any good reason to doubt him.

 

Which brings me to this.  Bigfoot skepticism seems based on the a priori premise that 'this can't be happening; so we have to figure out some way it isn't happening.  A good way to start is to say that no matter what, sasquatch is the least likely possibility.'  Not really; not when the evidence says no.

Edited October 7, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Yes, but the prime footprint expert in bigfoot lore is Jimmy Chillicut who placed much emphasis on alleged dermal ridges. These same dermal ridges were proven to be duplicated exactly as an artefact of the casting process by Matt Crowley. Even Chillicut was forced to acknowledge this fact.  While that does not immediately disqualify every footprint, it does add more ambiguity as to any set of tracks authenticity.

 

 http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

 

If you decide beforehand that a witness report is true until proven wrong then you are immediately stepping into the deep end of poor, but undefeatable, logic and you are veering very far away from scientific thinking. A witness report is not a piece of falsifiable evidence. It cannot, logically, be proven wrong. Therefore your premise is ridiculous. You do not get to create a situation where your favorite type of evidence stands true unless the impossible happens. 

 

Yes, we all know that Alton Higgins would scream scientist from across a Wal-Mart parking lot.  I don't know that I have ever seen you mention the name absent the Wal-Mart qualifier. ( hint: it's getting old). However, I am more interested in results and less interested in your attempt at pithy descriptors.  And results with NAWAC just aint happening. 

Edited October 7, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Yeah, but you already admitted that you haven't read up.  So, ya know...whatever you said.

[dmaker]

Lol. Hardly. I said I had not read Bill Munn recent book. That was all.

And you haven't read Bills book either.

Edited October 7, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Umm humm.  Given your 'analysis' that's interesting.  But inconclusive.  To say the very least.

[Guest thermalman]

Can you find "the hidden tiger"? Not the obvious one that everyone sees. Look for words in stripes (by Donald Rust).

While focusing your eyes on an object for some time, other events seem to take place. It's because of how our brains are tuned in to optical perceptions.

http://www.optical-illusionist.com/category/moving-images/

http://www.vision3d.com/sghidden.html

Edited October 7, 2014 by thermalman

[Sunflower]

Found it,   It's an "H" past the tiger's left shoulder and then the rest of the word "Hidden" and the word "Tiger" is spelled from hip to thigh vertically. 

[WSA]

Norseman's position is mine too: If the PGF doesn't do it for you, you should not have any reasonable expectation of finding anything useful to add. WE sure don't.  Leave your number. We'll call you if something turns up. Ta-ta now!