MIB Posted October 19, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 19, 2014 How do you define real? Bigfoot does not seem to fit the dictionary definition of real...at least not yet, right? The dictionary defines real as: existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, orfictitious: Hmmmm ... I wasn't necessarily stopping at bigfoot. For instance, we hopefully all agree a game called "football" is shown on TV on Sunday. Some people watch it almost as a religion, others ridicule it. The point I was trying to make in my own special obtuse way is that acceptance or ridicule has no bearing on the truth of the thing, at most it reflects on the person holding the accepting the belief or ridiculing belief. We continue to get cause and effect backwards in ways that scream of human arrogance and egocentricity and yet it seems everyone hears but the person screaming. MIB Number of alleged bigfoot evidence that has held up to scientific scrutiny = ZERO. Number of alleged bigfoot evidence that has been falsified, greater than zero. Nuff said. Unfortunately for you, no. One step beyond "nuff said." You went past logic into false logic. Constructed this way, BF cannot be said to not exist until every single piece of evidence has been individually tested and proven false and every single piece of evidence that ever will be presented is tested and found false. The most you can do, logically, with this construct is assert improbability. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) What's the deal with proponents? Skeptics can't really do much with this topic other than set up strawmen; they have no other talking points. That's the deal with proponents. The "how could anyone imagine bigfoot doing all this stuff" is the smelliest apple in the skeptic basket. It's also the least useful, as it talks about something that no serious proponent believes. The question "how could anyone imagine all this behavior in an animal not even proven to exist?" sort of, er, answers itself, don't it. Edited October 19, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) It has nothing at all to do with numbers. It has everything to do with testable evidence. Numbers arguments are what proponents use to create an illusion of probability. That's all. Evidence, to date, when tested, does not support the bigfoot claim. To fall back on false arguments about numbers is ridiculous. As if 1000 or 10,000 reports means at least some must be genuine is ludicrous. Let's talk about testable evidence and the results of such. None of which, it turns out, support the bigfoot claim. If you want to talk about numbers that actually mean something, then you're going to lose. Number of alleged bigfoot evidence that has held up to scientific scrutiny = ZERO. Number of alleged bigfoot evidence that has been falsified, greater than zero. Nuff said. dmaker,Would you be willing to concede any (even if admittedly small) non-zero possibility that a currently uncatalogued physical creature is responsible for some small percentage of bigfoot reports? Edited October 19, 2014 by Bonehead74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Last evening/night I spent 9 hours watching every Bigfoot documentary that I could find. I had no idea until then that there are so many. Yes Monsterquest did invest a lot of time in the subject as did others. As usual these programs leave the viewer with more questions than answers. As usual they come up empty handed. The proponent has a tough row to hoe especially when decrying that there hasn't been money or science put into the chase. I certainly saw a lot of scientists in those 9 hours and I saw a lot of scientific equipment and expertise in play. IMO it is safe to assume that science and money has indeed been invested in the debate. Furthermore the effort has been not only invested in the America's but globally as well. In those 9 hours I saw many different things I hadn't seen before but I saw nothing new. That is to say it is the same as it was 30 years ago only there are more "toys and gadgets" in play these days. These toys and gadgets BTW are capable of adding many many man hours to the search whereas previously research was done mostly in real time. Trail cameras and sonic recorders can run for days or longer recording a targeted area. I was especially interested in one effort where the camera was encased in an artificial rock to disguise it's location in a stream bed. Darn clever those scientists and that counts as true effort. I think we can drop the tired pretense that science and technology ignores the issue. I didn't come away with that idea at all. Certainly all of the bedrock issues and cases were covered and there was no shortage of testimony, but then there never is. However the one major absentee contingent was the habitation contingent. I found that troubling and for good reason. If you are doing a documentary on Bigfoot why not approach those who have a relationship with them? Is each and every habituator closed to the sharing of their knowledge? Or is there simply no habituation actually happening? Or maybe these shows don't want to offer the real proof so they can make more shows and bait more viewers? After all once there is proof the game is over. At some point with all questions it becomes clear as to the true nature of the issue in question. The issue of Bigfoot has had a good long run but it remains active more out of the romance of the subject than the possibility of the subject being real. Proponents indeed have a tough row to hoe. Crow this is a great post. It stirred alot of thought. I guess I've watched about all the shows on Bigfoot too. I really enjoyed the Monsterquest series, sad to see that one go. Here's the thing though, with almost every show done they did throw some technology and money into most of them but the amount of time they spent in the field negated any advantage they had of success. I liked the episode with the scientists in the cabin. I can't remember if it was Snell lake or Snell Grove, something like that, someone please feel free to correct me. "Sasquatch Attack" 1 and 2 lol anyway, those guys had it going on but for how long? A week? Two? I had the majority of my encounters back in 2010 and I've been going into those areas regularly (during peak seasons) since and yet no more sightings for me. Other guys in our group have had sightings in the same area since mine. I guess it was their turn and I'm glad they also had a sighting. But, I've found that having an encounter with one of these creatures is not a sure bet. Not even after weeks, months or even years of dedicated trekking. So for someone to go out for a week or two and have an encounter would be pretty dang lucky. As far as the habituators, I've seen one show that featured Janice Carter. I don't remember the name of the show but it was shot back when Igor Burtsev was staying with her. No fruit from that one. Another supposed habituator scene was played out in Eastern KY. It turned out to be a hoax as well. I'm with you. I'd like to see some habituators or habitators lol on a show that produced something interesting. But, so far the record hasn't been very good. Chris B. Edited October 19, 2014 by ChrisBFRPKY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Last evening/night I spent 9 hours watching every Bigfoot documentary that I could find. I had no idea until then that there are so many. Yes Monsterquest did invest a lot of time in the subject as did others. As usual these programs leave the viewer with more questions than answers. As usual they come up empty handed. The proponent has a tough row to hoe especially when decrying that there hasn't been money or science put into the chase. I certainly saw a lot of scientists in those 9 hours and I saw a lot of scientific equipment and expertise in play. IMO it is safe to assume that science and money has indeed been invested in the debate. Furthermore the effort has been not only invested in the America's but globally as well. In those 9 hours I saw many different things I hadn't seen before but I saw nothing new. That is to say it is the same as it was 30 years ago only there are more "toys and gadgets" in play these days. These toys and gadgets BTW are capable of adding many many man hours to the search whereas previously research was done mostly in real time. Trail cameras and sonic recorders can run for days or longer recording a targeted area. I was especially interested in one effort where the camera was encased in an artificial rock to disguise it's location in a stream bed. Darn clever those scientists and that counts as true effort. I think we can drop the tired pretense that science and technology ignores the issue. I didn't come away with that idea at all. Certainly all of the bedrock issues and cases were covered and there was no shortage of testimony, but then there never is. However the one major absentee contingent was the habitation contingent. I found that troubling and for good reason. If you are doing a documentary on Bigfoot why not approach those who have a relationship with them? Is each and every habituator closed to the sharing of their knowledge? Or is there simply no habituation actually happening? Or maybe these shows don't want to offer the real proof so they can make more shows and bait more viewers? After all once there is proof the game is over. At some point with all questions it becomes clear as to the true nature of the issue in question. The issue of Bigfoot has had a good long run but it remains active more out of the romance of the subject than the possibility of the subject being real. Proponents indeed have a tough row to hoe. Proponents do indeed have the obligation to present proof of our claims. I take this very seriously, serious enough to pack either a 45-70 guide gun or a 44 mag with me while traveling in "good" territory. But let's not lie to ourselves, despite the media hype? Very few scientists take the subject seriously.....and fewer still are out there looking. Almost none are prepared to take a type specimen if the opportunity presented itself. We do have amateurs out there looking but numbers are small and darn few of them are pro kill either. The evidence we do get is some photos, film clips and plaster casts. Weak sauce for scientific evidence. Science wants a tooth or a jaw bone or a femur bone......something tangible. So either your going to stumble upon this evidence or force the issue if you see one. At this point filming it is a waste of time. There is such a stigma surrounding the subject you might as well throw your camera in the crick and forget you ever laid eyes on it. Plaster casts? It makes for a nice conversation piece with your Bigfoot buddies.....bout it. You shoot one and haul it or a chunk there of to the Smithsonian? They will talk to you, I promise. The ball is in our court.....it does no good to rehash the PGF 60 years later, or to convince the JREF with words. It's futile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 ...it does no good to rehash the PGF 60 years later, or to convince the JREF with words. It's futile! Amen, brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 That rings fairly true actually. And if so, is very damning data that points precisely to what bigfoot is: a social construct. Women imagine it different than men. This does not happen with real animals. What about women that carry those tiny dogs in their purses and dress them up in clothes? I believe they are projecting some kind of mother/child bond onto that kind of relationship that borders on the ridiculous. Nevermind, I see it's been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 dmaker, Would you be willing to concede any (even if admittedly small) non-zero possibility that a currently uncatalogued physical creature is responsible for some small percentage of bigfoot reports? 0.05% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Ha!! A half of a percent is just that! *sends a proponent welcoming delegate to dmaker's house* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 0.05%Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) 0.05%. With nothing backing it up. But hey. That's the deal with skeptics. Edited October 19, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Incorrect as usual DWA. I believe that bigfoot is a myth and the the evidence is deliberately fabricated or the result of mistaken identity. There are many proven examples of such. Where's your proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Oh no, I am exactly dead spot on. You show a number, you show how you got there. The only thing you are showing us is that you have a True Unexamined Belief, and pull numbers out of the air. See, one thing you don't seem to understand is that there are two unproven propositions here: mine and yours. Mine is just the one with all (100%) of the evidence backing it up. And I have shown, every way possible in 6,885 posts, exactly where that number comes from. READ. Edited October 19, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Bzzzzzt. Wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 20, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 20, 2014 ^^ 0.05% is a value that is greater than zero. Without further proofs on your part (please show the math) DWA would appear to be right on this one. ****************** Not all proponents think that BF has supernatural abilities and the like. The ones I saw seemed very much flesh and blood; it is my assumption based on that experience that that is exactly what they are, with physical abilities that go with the apparent strength that appears to be in their makeup. They seem to have some brains too, which accounts easily for why their existence is still debated ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts