Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Saskeptic, I think you write in a non confrontational way and I also think there is immense value to your presence in Bigfoot discussion. Of course I think I possibly have rather different views concerning the nature of reality to you and I am among those who speak of having personally encountered BF/yowie / dooligah (and this is only a name I can give for such encounters - still a Dooligah by any other name is still a Dooligah). I have read in your post that one of the reasons you tend to discount the BF sightings are that there are so many for such an apparently elusive creature. Is it possible that you are so involved in BF research or interest that you disproportionatly assess sightings . I dont think that comparitively (to the norm) there are a large number of BF sightings.
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 As with Saskeptic I feel that there are far too many reports coming from far too many places to consider that these are real reports of a real creature. It simply does not add up. Also I think that Bigfoot became so embedded in pop culture that sightings have materialized in formerly non Bigfoot regions via pop culture fun/recreational modalities. The more diverse sightings there are the less likely there will be a real Bigfoot because this implies that that there are significant numbers of these things which implies that capturing one physically, on camera or corpse should have happened by now.
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 I think there are a lot of inconclusive video's and pictures out there. They cannot be considered proof by any means,they certainly lack the quality needed for definitive evidence, and although science cannot use them to prove a species, I don't think they all deserved to be dismissed either. The same can be said of some tracks. Tracks have been found that the only thing more improbable than hoaxer, in the mind of science,is a Bigfoot. Sometimes its location, and sometimes its clarity, sometimes its both. I personally don't know where all these "unknown" species hair samples stand,but if they are unknowns, then again,deserve more attention. Many of the approaches, and attitudes are geared towards dealing with creature,whose apparent intelligence, is somewhat acknowledged,but what if its more intelligent than we think? We always apply intelligence using our own as some sort of standard or gauge, what if their intelligence is radically different from ours? Does anyone think its plausible then, that their ability to avoid us is more by intelligent design? Think of how successfully we have seen thousands of soldiers avoid other soldiers in the jungle, even the lack of bodies example can be compared in this case. I am asking about plausibility here, and opinion,so try not to beat me up to bad.
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 1st - thanks for the kind words, Encounter. They are much appreciated. I dont think that comparitively (to the norm) there are a large number of BF sightings. To the norm of what, though? Many more people see bears than see bigfoot, sure. But a better comparison to bigfoot is something really elusive, say wolverine. How do the number of bigfoot sightings compare to the number of wolverine sightings? A comparison like that is fraught with unknowns of course, but I'm willing to bet that the numbers over a given year aren't that different. We can also come up with any number of creatures that are likely seen by humans far less often than claims of bigfoot encounters, yet all creatures that we know exist from collected specimens, game cam photos, etc. I'm thinking of things like clouded leopards, golden cats, serows, Sumatran rhinos, etc.
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Yes there are various comparisons concerning the norm. You seem to say there is a proportion of sightings you might find valid for an elusive creature and a proportion too high for it to have validity. I think comparitive to sightings of those things we take for normal in the bush/forest, the sightings of BF (sighting out of the norm) is not high. It seems to be high if you spend a lot of time reading about BF. As to the need for sample/specimine. You know this concept really concerns me. This idea that those who are not human can be tagged as specimines does not reflect either a compasionate nor respectful view of all life (still people can have an extent of compassion and respect who go about tagging other beings). You cannot learn a single thing from another being in tagging them, and by taking a measure of their freedom away - nor by trying to study them outslde of their true context as a part of nature an connected to you. Further the needing a specimine matter is truly odd considering scientists believed the moon existed long before anyone could walk on it and gather moon rocks. You believe your great great great grand aunt or uncle existed though you never touched them. You believe there are people outside of your own identity though truly there is no way you can prove this.
gigantor Posted February 13, 2012 Admin Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) How do the number of bigfoot sightings compare to the number of wolverine sightings? A comparison like that is fraught with unknowns of course, but I'm willing to bet that the numbers over a given year aren't that different. Ok, I'll bet you $10. Where is that database of wolverine sightings so we may settle it? Edited February 13, 2012 by gigantor
Guest Crowlogic Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) I think there are a lot of inconclusive video's and pictures out there. They cannot be considered proof by any means,they certainly lack the quality needed for definitive evidence, and although science cannot use them to prove a species, I don't think they all deserved to be dismissed either. The same can be said of some tracks. Tracks have been found that the only thing more improbable than hoaxer, in the mind of science,is a Bigfoot. Sometimes its location, and sometimes its clarity, sometimes its both. I personally don't know where all these "unknown" species hair samples stand,but if they are unknowns, then again,deserve more attention. Many of the approaches, and attitudes are geared towards dealing with creature,whose apparent intelligence, is somewhat acknowledged,but what if its more intelligent than we think? We always apply intelligence using our own as some sort of standard or gauge, what if their intelligence is radically different from ours? Does anyone think its plausible then, that their ability to avoid us is more by intelligent design? Think of how successfully we have seen thousands of soldiers avoid other soldiers in the jungle, even the lack of bodies example can be compared in this case. I am asking about plausibility here, and opinion,so try not to beat me up to bad. I doubt that there is a super intelligence behind the possibility that Bigfoot is ultra stealthy and has been for centuries. If anything perhaps a super instinct of stealth. I don't think they can be smarter than us since they lack a true culture and are not tool makers or fire users. Therefore it would seem that they are at our mercy. That we have no viable solid evidence of their presence defies logic because it means the issue has a perfect track record of evading our deliberate attempts to secure proof as well as the accidental discovery of proof. Logic seems to dictate that we haven't secured proof because there is nothing there to secure proof of. Further the needing a specimine matter is truly odd considering scientists believed the moon existed long before anyone could walk on it and gather moon rocks. You believe your great great great grand aunt or uncle existed though you never touched them. You believe there are people outside of your own identity though truly there is no way you can prove this. The moon is a poor example. Seeing the moon is a universal human condition. The moon and it's movements are predictable and known already for centuries. Believing in our own family ancestors is a cause can effect scenario. If a person exists it must have had parents and parents needed to have parents etc. Hence a logical and traceable linage. We will need a specimen of Bigfoot (assuming they exist). Far too many missteps have been taken concerning the proof and dogma of this issue to accept passive evidence. The clock is ticking and the issue is running out of credible time making the odds favor that it does not exist. Edited February 13, 2012 by Crowlogic
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Not to outright disagree with you crow,but don't embellish it, I do not believe it would take super intelligence,or super stealth, I think an intelligence on par with our own, or even in the ball park would due nicely.Combined with some evolutionary sharpened senses. The lack of culture is an assumption,and the lack of the use of tools etc, is the very caparison to out own intelligence I am talking about. Again we are gauging somethings intelligence by our own standard. I think we learn more and more about intelligence, and culture for that matter all the time, Crows are a good example of that. In my opinion, if this creature exist, there has to be something unique about it, that's for sure. I think I am way off topic here to,sorry about that Edited February 13, 2012 by JohnC
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 The moon is a poor example. Seeing the moon is a universal human condition. The moon and it's movements are predictable and known already for centuries. Believing in our own family ancestors is a cause can effect scenario. If a person exists it must have had parents and parents needed to have parents etc. Hence a logical and traceable linage. We will need a specimen of Bigfoot (assuming they exist). Far too many missteps have been taken concerning the proof and dogma of this issue to accept passive evidence. The clock is ticking and the issue is running out of credible time making the odds favor that it does not exist. Actually you can utilise the similar characteristic reports of hairy hominids worldwide and throughout history as a measurement. There are whole societies that believe in and witness these creatures generation to generation, and who document it in their social form of documentation. They see this as much a regular part of their world as the moon. Such peoples also knew of other creatures not accepted by westerners for centuries until westerners finally came across them – gorilla being a case in point. Ancient peoples understood much about astronomy that westerns had to rediscover due to rejection of such knowledge. The concept of the atom is ancient (atma ) and the knowledge that the atom worked in a form of relationship with other atoms was known. This is now being “discovered†in modern science. These ancients also believed in creatures fitting the descriptors of a hairy hominid or bf – but apparently the modern scientific skeptic rejects this believing the world view and form of documentation by such people who first discussed the atom to be faulty. Shamans are aware that there is no real linear time but it has taken to the past twenty years in the west for scientists to understand non time/ open time and realise that linear time is just a perspective. Until then such understandings were only for those into theology, or indigenous peoples who had a more multidimensional world view. How is it those needing a body for proof don’t learn from history. The thing is here, it really doesn’t matter to prove something for western science. Time and time again modern western science has come from such a limited viewpoint of reality that they have failed to see what so many cultures saw long before them – the atom being fairly prominent in that sense. Even certain planets were known to the ancients that became unknown by western science and have only recently been “discoveredâ€. The idea of “discovery†for western science is to learn about something everyone already knew about in other cultures. The west “discovered†Australian Aboriginal people or American first nation people apparently. The west “discovered†vast regions inhabited by other humans. Really the west keeps “discovering†what is already known but this arrogant concept of western scientific importance has blinded it to learning much much much faster and moving forward. Further, what the west “discovers†it seems to like to imprison, destroy or own. So all in all those who have encountered BF don’t need you the western skeptic who wants a body for evidence, to have such proof. Some such as myself don’t even know if it isn’t extremely dangerous giving western culture proof of BF.
bipedalist Posted February 13, 2012 BFF Patron Posted February 13, 2012 Must be some bad mojo swimming around tonight!
Guest spurfoot Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Here is something for people to chew on: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-people-are-fooled-by-evidence
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 Note that I almost always use the word "description" rather than "discovery." Note as well that no one needs to kill a Bigfoot to prove its existence (sorry-bad typing on mobile device) A bigfoot could be found dead-a tooth could wash out of some streambank for example-and that would do it. If these creatures are out there, such finds are inevitable.
Guest MikeG Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic, could you comment on the possibility as you see it of such finds having already been made, and simply mis-catalogued or un-catalogued, and left in a drawer in some museum somewhere? Mike Edited February 13, 2012 by MikeG
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 That's possible Mike, but I consider it a low probability. I certainly wouldn't expect it to apply to bigfoot remains with any greater probability than to the remains of any other Quaternary mammals. In other words, cave bear teeth could be sitting in a drawer uncatalogued somewhere or mixed in with brown bear teeth, but that hasn't kept cave bears from being described. And, of course, bigfoots are supposed to still be here to leave such remains behind, unlike cave bears that have not been able to leave anything new to be found for the past several thousand years. If bigfoots are bigger than we are, and eat a diet that's different from ours - and the diets of early humans in the Americas - then there would be differences in dentition glaringly obvious to vertebrate paleontologists. I imagine "Patty's" teeth would beckon like a neon sign in a drawer of mixed human remains, although a "juvenile bigfoot's" teeth might be harder to identify. One problem is that there is a widespread belief that a bunch of "giant Indian" remains have been unearthed in the U.S. and that these are "probably bigfoot remains that the scientists are too closed-minded to appreciate." But the premise here falls apart when you learn about how flimsy is the evidence for those giant skeletons in the first place. Brian Dunning's Skeptoid includes this episode on "strange skulls" that reports on his efforts to actually find any of these giant remains that had been reported so widely in the 19th Century. His results? Zippo. None of these seem actually to have been accurate reports, or if they were, none of the material has survived to be examined.
Guest MikeG Posted February 13, 2012 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) I think you're probably right. Occasionally, however, great art finds are made in the bowels of one of our major art galleries, and many an over-looked dinosaur fossil has been re-classified and be found to be really important. Someone turned up a whole load of Darwin's fossils from the Beagle expedition only a few weeks ago which hadn't been seen for a century or more. So whilst the odds are you're right, I'll bet that anything of substance in the forthcoming DNA paper results in a whole lot of researchers scurrying around in the basements of a whole lot of museums, just on the off-chance. Mike Edited February 13, 2012 by MikeG
Recommended Posts