Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Yuchi1]

I would make that same bet Crow. I have my doubts that they exist, but I can't explain away some of these clear daytime sightings by reliable witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose by sharing their experience. And while I am a skeptic, I'm not a denialist. Those people saw something. Something that you can't explain. Well, you can attempt to explain it using the tired old techniques...but, that's speculation. You, or no one else,  can truly explain those cases. Those people saw something. I am not sure Bf exists, but I am sure that not ALL witnesses are wrong. Not every single one. To me that line of thought is absent of critical thinking and is ridiculous.

 

IF....a certain Skeptics forum were to embrace this logic (which, IMO, is perfectly logical) they would need to put the fire out and call the dogs home.

[Guest DWA]

I would make that same bet Crow. I have my doubts that they exist, but I can't explain away some of these clear daytime sightings by reliable witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose by sharing their experience. And while I am a skeptic, I'm not a denialist. Those people saw something. Something that you can't explain. Well, you can attempt to explain it using the tired old techniques...but, that's speculation. You, or no one else,  can truly explain those cases. Those people saw something. I am not sure Bf exists, but I am sure that not ALL witnesses are wrong. Not every single one. To me that line of thought is absent of critical thinking and is ridiculous.

 

This.

 

It is fatuous to continue to insist on proof proof proof! from proponents, and to continue, at the same time, to pronounce, as one's conclusion mind you, the barest of assumptions, assumptions that are demonstrably inapplicable to the material under consideration.

 

If you cannot prove to me that you are right...then the question is open.  Period.  (And on this particular question, you have actually been proven wrong, your ability to see that notwithstanding.)

IF....a certain Skeptics forum were to embrace this logic (which, IMO, is perfectly logical) they would need to put the fire out and call the dogs home.

And that is the whole point to be made about bigfoot skepticism.  There is nothing to it.

[Guest Crowlogic]

This.

 

It is fatuous to continue to insist on proof proof proof! from proponents, and to continue, at the same time, to pronounce, as one's conclusion mind you, the barest of assumptions, assumptions that are demonstrably inapplicable to the material under consideration.

 

If you cannot prove to me that you are right...then the question is open.  Period.  (And on this particular question, you have actually been proven wrong, your ability to see that notwithstanding.)

And that is the whole point to be made about bigfoot skepticism.  There is nothing to it.

Proof coming from proponents is as unlikely as proof coming from skeptics.  What part of bigfoot does not exist don't you get?

[ShadowBorn]

Well there was one sample that did come back as human x mammalian hybrid . Dr. Sykes team was stumped on this since they did clean all the contaminants of this sample. The sample # 25072 I believe. Here is what I could pull from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/on May 14, 2015 :

 

 Of the recovered sequences, only one
(no. 25072) yielded a human sequence, indicating that the
rigorous cleaning and extraction protocol had been effective
in eliminating extraneous human contamination which often
confounds the analysis of oldmaterial andmay lead to misinterpretation
of a sample as human or even as an unlikely and
Table 1. Origin and GenBank sequence matches of hair samples attributed to anomalous primates. (All sequence matches were 100%.)
ref. no. location attribution GenBank sequence match common name
25025 Ladakh, India yeti U. maritimus polar bear
25191 Bhutan yeti/migyhur U. maritimus polar bear
25092 Nepal yeti Capricornis sumatraensis serow
25027 Russia almasty U. arctos brown bear
25039 Russia almasty Equus caballus horse
25040 Russia almasty Bos taurus cow
25041 Russia almasty Equus caballus horse
25073 Russia almasty Equus caballus horse
25074 Russia almasty U. americanus American black bear
25075 Russia almasty P. lotor raccoon
25194 Russia almasty U. arctos brown bear
25044 Sumatra orang pendek Tapirus indicus Malaysian tapir
25035 AZ, USA bigfoot P. lotor raccoon
25167 AZ, USA bigfoot Ovis aries sheep
25104 CA, USA bigfoot U. americanus American black bear
25106 CA, USA bigfoot U. americanus American black bear
25081 MN, USA bigfoot Erethizon dorsatum N. American porcupine
25082 MN, USA bigfoot U. americanus American black bear
25202 OR, USA bigfoot U. americanus American black bear
25212 OR, USA bigfoot C. lupus/latrans/domesticus wolf/coyote/dog
25023 TX, USA bigfoot Equus caballus horse
25072 TX, USA bigfoot Homo sapiens human
25028 WA, USA bigfoot U. americanus American black bear
25029 WA, USA bigfoot C. lupus/latrans/domesticus wolf/coyote/dog
25030 WA, USA bigfoot Bos taurus cow
25069 WA, USA bigfoot Odocoileus virginianus/hemionus white-tailed/mule deer
25086 WA, USA bigfoot Bos taurus cow
25093 WA, USA bigfoot C. lupus/latrans/domesticus wolf/coyote/dog
25112 WA, USA bigfoot Bos taurus cow
25113 WA, USA bigfoot C. lupus/latrans/domesticus wolf/coyote/dog
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20140161
2
Downloaded from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/on May 14, 2015
unknown human x mammalian hybrid [4]. The deliberately
permissive primer combination used here allowed a wide
range of mammalian DNA to be amplified within a single reaction,
although this meant that some identification did not go
beyond the level of genus.

 

Not sure if this is ok, academically. But I figure I would post it.

[chelefoot]

This.

 

 

 

If you cannot prove to me that you are right...then the question is open.  Period.  (And on this particular question, you have actually been proven wrong, your ability to see that notwithstanding.)

Who me?

[Guest]

Who me?

 I think he was talking to Crow.  Agreeing with you.

[Airdale]

I didn't need to see anything beyond "Time" to know that the time I spent reading it would be forever lost (pun intended). This is the same rag that published a cover story entitled something like "Men and Women are Actually Different!" about 15 or 20 years ago. I'd kind of figured that out once I passed 40 and I certainly don't require input from "Time" to form my own conclusions regarding the subject of this forum.

[WSA]

Spotted the issue here. C.L. thinks the probabilities are equal. 'Splains a lot.

[Guest DWA]

Who me?

No, not *you* you.  I didn't think "one" worked in that context.  I mean *anyone* who tells me the conclusion to which the evidence points is wrong needs to *prove* that, particularly if they're demanding proof themselves.  A fundamental principle of science - sauce for the goose - applies.

Edited May 15, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Divergent1]

I hate to break it to you but there is no science that definitively states bigfoot can't exist. It can predict the probability of bigfoot's existence but that's about it. I base my personal doubts about bigfoot's existence on that probability. However, try to explain that to a witness that genuinely thinks they saw bigfoot. It's a lost cause.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Any prediction on the probability of Bigfoot's existence is going to be based on Bigfoot being a normal relict hominid that migrated here. I think it's only natural that it'll be an incredibly low probability.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I didn't need to see anything beyond "Time" to know that the time I spent reading it would be forever lost (pun intended). This is the same rag that published a cover story entitled something like "Men and Women are Actually Different!" about 15 or 20 years ago. I'd kind of figured that out once I passed 40 and I certainly don't require input from "Time" to form my own conclusions regarding the subject of this forum.

 

Clutch my pearls and pass the smelling salts! It's a wonder they didn't win a Pulitzer for that.

 

 

I hate to break it to you but there is no science that definitively states bigfoot can't exist. It can predict the probability of bigfoot's existence but that's about it. I base my personal doubts about bigfoot's existence on that probability. However, try to explain that to a witness that genuinely thinks they saw bigfoot. It's a lost cause.

 

Correct

[Guest Crowlogic]

Any prediction on the probability of Bigfoot's existence is going to be based on Bigfoot being a normal relict hominid that migrated here. I think it's only natural that it'll be an incredibly low probability.

Relic hominid and incredibly  low probability are both valid points.  A telltale socially driven red flag is the preponderance of reports coming from a preponderance of unlikely places.  Consider that if bigfoot reports are seeing the same local individual in each local report there is still a large number of creatures.  However it is far more likely that different individuals are seen which ups the population even more.  Upping the population to have regional breeding populations puts even more individuals into play.  So with now thousands of bigfoot roaming the country the odds of one being brought in (dead or alive) increases many fold.  Yet this does not happen and it should be happening assuming it exists as claimed.  The proponent can't have it both ways it is either very very rare and in very very remote areas or does not exist.  

 

Its been stated that science cannot directly disprove bigfoot  but it can and does evaluate the odds of it existing.  Bigfoot proponent evidence does not prove the existence of bigfoot because the evidence is not leading the proponents to bigfoot proof.  This failure to provide proof of a somewhat common creature (according to some) adds further validity towards the probability that bigfoot does not exist. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DTRobers]

Belief can be defined as conviction sans verifiable proof. You can be convinced of the existence of bigfoot by a sighting,

by sounds, or by a feeling. But that conviction cannot be transmitted to anyone else without concrete proof. You can produce

films or photographs but those could always be staged or photo-shopped. You could produce sound recordings, but they could

be manufactured. You can make casts of footprints, but there have been footprint casts ostensibly made by UFO landing gear,

aliens, and lizard-men.

I agree that lack of concrete evidence ( a type specimen in the form of a living or dead bigfoot) is not by itself proof of nonexistence. I would hope that the proponents of bigfoot will agree that personal testimony and the currently available

artifacts are not proof of existence.

[WSA]

I find the world is a much easier and less stressful place if I just summarily  exclude evidence of all kinds or improbable things, and I just pure-d hate it when my chosen reality collides with what is actually going on.  For that reason I sympathize with our resident denialists. Telling somebody they didn't  see/hear/smell what they know they clearly did is a worrisome task, and one that is never done.  Tilt on!