Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Drew]

I have to point out (again) that trail cams ARE picking up interesting photos, but they get tossed right out by the usual Skeptics when presented.

Please give an example of a trailcam Bigfoot that got "Tossed right out" by the usual Skeptics.

The one I think looks like an owl, certainly can not be claimed to look like Bigfoot, and the Jacobs photos...

These get tossed out, because they don't represent any evidence of BIGFOOT.

I tossed out Bulletmaker's trailcam photo because there was a guy with a baseball hat in the corner.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Drew

[Guest]

I have, you just ain't smellin' it.

You think you've introduced something new with the "false premise" question? I doubt it, as I'm pretty sure Huntster and I had this conversation several years ago.

[Guest]

The one I think looks like an owl, certainly can not be claimed to look like Bigfoot, and the Jacobs photos...

These get tossed out, because they don't represent any evidence of BIGFOOT.

You wouldn't admit it if they were the clearest, most perfect pictures in the world, Drew. You'd say "they're TOO good, they must be hoaxes".

[Drew]

You wouldn't admit it if they were the clearest, most perfect pictures in the world, Drew. You'd say "they're TOO good, they must be hoaxes".

That is not true. I would be completely blown away by a trailcam pic that had the clarity of the Wolverine or those black/cinnamon bear gamecam photos.

You misunderstand me, I am not trying to Poo poo bigfoot, I would be extremely pumped if the research group in the Cascades issued a photo of a Bigfoot climbing up a tree to get a chunk of meat from the rack. I would also be fired up about the hair catchers and the DNA they would get from such an encounter.

I truly don't think it will ever happen, but if it does, I'm not going to throw something out because it is too good.

[Guest]

You think you've introduced something new with the "false premise" question? I doubt it, as I'm pretty sure Huntster and I had this conversation several years ago.

I wasn't trying to introduce anything new. I was just pointing out a fallacy that you and Kit often commit with your "BF doesn't exist else we would have proof by now" arguments. But you don't smell it..so nevermind.

[Guest]

I wasn't trying to introduce anything new. I was just pointing out a fallacy that you and Kit often commit with your "BF doesn't exist else we would have proof by now" arguments. But you don't smell it..so nevermind.

You think I don't get it. I do. I'm just unimpressed.

Please explain to us how one can enter into any kind of evaluation for the lack of evidence without a beginning premise as to what a bigfoot is supposed to be. I'm happy to modify that premise away from what some see as the very liberal BFRO premise. Before I make hasty generalizations about what people believe about bigfoots, by all means provide some guidance on the following:

what is a bigfoot?

what is its distribution?

what is its habitat?

what does it eat?

Until we establish these things as a starting premise then I agree with you: it's pointless to discuss such specifics as the likelihood of photographing one in a camera trap at any given location.

[Guest gershake]

That's because Saskeptic doesn't fall into this category. He doesn't believe in bigfoot but when he discusses it, he always writes what he thinks bigfoot should behave like if it existed. That's what makes him one of my favourite skeptics here.

[Guest]

ditto

[Guest]

You think I don't get it. I do. I'm just unimpressed.

Please explain to us how one can enter into any kind of evaluation for the lack of evidence without a beginning premise as to what a bigfoot is supposed to be. I'm happy to modify that premise away from what some see as the very liberal BFRO premise. Before I make hasty generalizations about what people believe about bigfoots, by all means provide some guidance on the following:

what is a bigfoot?

what is its distribution?

what is its habitat?

what does it eat?

Until we establish these things as a starting premise then I agree with you: it's pointless to discuss such specifics as the likelihood of photographing one in a camera trap at any given location.

I'm not convinced you get it because you have yet to acknowledge it. All we need is a premise that isn't false, which is not the same as a premise we know is true. However, if you consider the BFRO database to be 100% bunk then your premise is based on bunk, but that doesn't make it a false premise. Go ahead and use the BFRO database to describe a BF for your premise, but this can't help us determine which reports are true/false. It is my contention that since the BFRO reports can't be confirmed then it's a fallacy to use specific reports in your premise, such as "BF dumpster dives...why no pics?". For some reason this is not recognized as a false premise. I call it the "If bigfoot exists, then it doesn't." fallacy. That's all I'm talkin' bout Willis. Nothing new, but maybe I'll coin it anyway.

[southernyahoo]

Please explain to us how one can enter into any kind of evaluation for the lack of evidence without a beginning premise as to what a bigfoot is supposed to be.

You start with a hypothesis that is modifiable, and which is based on witness anecdotes describing what it looked like, where, when and how it behaved. You'll inherently have a tendency to filter out reports that don't fit your preconcieved notions. The process is both useful and fallable at the same time.

I'm happy to modify that premise away from what some see as the very liberal BFRO premise. Before I make hasty generalizations about what people believe about bigfoots, by all means provide some guidance on the following:

what is a bigfoot?

what is its distribution?

what is its habitat?

what does it eat?

1.There is two prevailing hypotheses about bigfoot, it's either a bipedal pongid, or a member of the genus homo (hominid) , if it is a photographable biological entity.

2. It likely eats whatever is digestable, why be picky with such a high theorized caloric requirement?

3. It lives or can live whereever the habitat provides an escape to cover and seclusion with access to digestables, water etc.

Does that help any?

Until we establish these things as a starting premise then I agree with you: it's pointless to discuss such specifics as the likelihood of photographing one in a camera trap at any given location.

Me too.

[xspider1]

It is my contention that since the BFRO reports can't be confirmed then it's a fallacy to use specific reports in your premise, such as "BF dumpster dives...why no pics?".

That is a very good point, in my opinion. If the above statement wasn't true then, I could effectively 'disprove', let's just say for instance, Grey whales, simply by claiming that there is a Grey Whale 'siting' in my living room at this very moment. That's an extreme (and ridiculous) example, of course, but it's meant to demonstrate that the logic employed in these discussions can be as important as whatever science we can come up with. : B

[Guest]

I call it the "If bigfoot exists, then it doesn't." fallacy. That's all I'm talkin' bout Willis. Nothing new, but maybe I'll coin it anyway.

You can have that one, and I'm with you. What I don't understand is, under your interpretation, how someone could ever cite evidence to argue against the existence of something they don't believe in.

To me it doesn't matter if I don't believe in something I'm arguing against, the point is to accurately reflect the beliefs of the opposition so as to avoid the straw man fallacy.

[Guest]

You can have that one, and I'm with you. What I don't understand is, under your interpretation, how someone could ever cite evidence to argue against the existence of something they don't believe in.

To me it doesn't matter if I don't believe in something I'm arguing against, the point is to accurately reflect the beliefs of the opposition so as to avoid the straw man fallacy.

Thanks Sas. Even though we can't quite claim "bigfoot does not exist because..", we can use the lack of evidence to cast doubt on the number of reported sightings. With a large enough sample set we should be able to expose the level of hoaxing within a database. I've always thought this aspect has been neglected. Cluster analyses can be used on databases such as the BFRO's to estimate the level of hoaxing. I think it would be interesting to see how the BFRO's database stacked up to statistical scrutiny.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Gigantofootecus

[Guest forest]

I think larger predators have actually avoided wolverines, so perhaps a conflict of territories is to blame.

Edited May 6, 2011 by forest

[Guest]

I think it would be interesting to see how the BFRO's database stacked up to statistical scrutiny.

Me too, but I don't know what statistical scrutiny really means in such a case. Some have made an effort to demonstrate that the great abundance of reports in the PNW is disproportionate to the number of people in the region, so they interpret the cluster of reports there as indicative of a real animal. Some make the same interpretation based on the correlation between bigfoot reports and land cover, e.g., bigfoot distribution reveals a real animal because it correlates well with something like topography or precipitation.

I don't see how those inferences rule out fabrications. To make a bigfoot story believable, you set it in a place where people think bigfoots live (e.g., the PNW) and in habitats that look wild enough to support such a creature, e.g., remote forests of high productivity which, in the PNW and just about everywhere else on the planet, are spatially autocorrelated with high precipitation. Viewed through this lens, it's actually the accounts from places not remote, forested, and PNWern that gain an air of credibility because they don't align with the traditional mythology.