This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Huntster]

From the perspective of a Bigfoot proponent, there is evidence of unknown origin, which equals Bigfoot evidence.

Unfortunately for the Bigfoot proponent, unknown evidence DOES NOT equal possible Bigfoot evidence, it simply equals unknown evidence.

And the denialist wants that evidence ignored.

A denialist is someone who denies reality to avoid an uncomfortable truth.

Pot, meet kettle.

I am comfortable with the truth, whether it turns out to be that Bigfoot exists, or Bigfoot does not exist. Can you say the same about yourself?

Most definately, but that requires the truth to be acquired, not denied.

[Guest]

I assume no such thing, nor have have I argued that. Again, what part of 'is charted' did you not understand?

Mulder, I'm fully aware that map isn't a topo map, where did I refer to it as a topo map? It's an incomplete map with blank spots on it, just like I said. Obviously you didn't see the connection I was trying to make -- that modern maps don't have those huge blank spots on them because the areas have been explored/charted.

Repeating the Big Lie a million times won't make it the truth. The area has NOT been explored/charted in the way you are implying it has been. Topo maps are made from aerial and sattelite photos, not armies of surveyors tramping all over the place.

I'm not sure why anyone would believe I think the only way to explore/chart an area is on foot, walking over every square inch. I certainly haven't argued that.

Yes you have, repeatedly. Stop being disingenuous. You continue to claim that somehow topo maps prove that the area counts as "explored" in the sense that man now knows exactly what's there and what isn't. They don't.

[Guest]

Not at all. From the perspective of logic, there is no reliable Bigfoot evidence.

How much more reliable do you want than a certified DNA lab saying "this matches no animal on record"? How much more reliable do you want than LEOs WITH trace evidence/recordings making official reports (the faking of which is a CRIME)?

Unfortunately for the Bigfoot proponent, unknown evidence DOES NOT equal possible Bigfoot evidence, it simply equals unknown evidence.

Let's see, that would be a combination of:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing.

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

Pegging the Psuedoskeptic meter here, Drew. If it isn't an already known, then Bigfoot cannot be ruled out as a source, unless you are prepared to present evidence (not theories) that DOES rule out Bigfoot as a source.

[Guest Kerchak]

Just a question.

I have often heard the claim that a lot of planes have gone down and have never been found in the region from Northern California up to southern Alaska but does anybody know the true figure? I once heard Peter Byrne say something like 50 or so since WW2.

What is the truth of this?

Edited October 2, 2010 by Kerchak

[Drew]

Label me what you will. evidence of an unknown animal does not equate to evidence of bigfoot.

Evidence of unknown animals is just another grasp at perpetuating the bigfoot myth.

[Huntster]

Just a question.

I have often heard the claim that a lot of planes have gone down and have never been found in the region from Northern California up to southern Alaska but does anybody know the true figure? I once heard Peter Byrne say something like 50 or so since WW2.

What is the truth of this?

There are so many airplanes that have gone missing in Alaska, it is probably an unknown figure. This is the Land of the Lost.

This was a famous case. I'd heard about it for years. It was rumored that there was a lot of gold on the flight; Chinese payment for US assistance, or captured Japanese gold. It was false.

There was an RC-135 that went down in the Wrangell Mountains in the mid 1980's, and the Air Force really wanted to at least locate the wreckage. We had an SR-71 flying in and out of Elmendorf for days looking for it, along with other Air Force and Civil Air Patrol aircraft involved in the search. I don't think they ever located it.

[Huntster]

Label me what you will. evidence of an unknown animal does not equate to evidence of bigfoot.

Correct. Evidence of an unknown animal equates to evidence of an unknown animal.

So we have an unknown animal out there, Drew. Catch the clue. Extract yourself from denial.

Evidence of unknown animals is just another grasp at perpetuating the bigfoot myth.

Evidence of unknown animals is an invitation to discovery, unless, of course, you're so deeply mired in denial that the discovery will make a fool out of you.

[Guest parnassus]

Repeating the Big Lie a million times won't make it the truth. The area has NOT been explored/charted in the way you are implying it has been. Topo maps are made from aerial and sattelite photos, not armies of surveyors tramping all over the place.

Yes you have, repeatedly. Stop being disingenuous. You continue to claim that somehow topo maps prove that the area counts as "explored" in the sense that man now knows exactly what's there and what isn't. They don't.

There may be some inhospitable acres or even square miles in Alaska where a "white" man has never trod. But you can never prove that to be the case in the contiguous US. It's not a jungle, and there are lots of roads, tracks and trails, where people love to go for business and pleasure and exploitation of resources, whether that be timber or oil or gold or silver or animal hides or just plain recreation. In those few places where there aren't roads every mile or two, hunters and guides go.

Much of the reason sportsmen continue to experience high-quality hunting seasons year after year on public land is because of unroaded lands. Officially known as “inventoried roadless areas†by the U.S. Forest Service, these backcountry areas are defined as national forest lands that contain more than 5,000 contiguous acres without improved roads and are known by hunters and anglers to contain our best remaining fish and wildlife habitat. Roadless areas provide large blocks of exceptional habitat for big-game species such as mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep and mountain goats. These areas also offer the least degraded streams and lakes where trout, salmon and other desirable fish species – dependent on clean water, stable streamflows and consistent lake storage – can thrive.

Roadless backcountry is found in 37 states and Puerto Rico and comprises 58.5 million acres, or 2 percent, of the 2.3 billion-acre land base of the United States.

While roads are important for providing sportsmen with access to the lands they use to hunt and fish, too many roads are associated with increased big-game vulnerability and fewer mature bucks and bulls, often resulting in shorter seasons and fewer available tags. Too many roads also can decrease the quality of important spawning habitat for trout, salmon and steelhead.

The US is not an explored country. You can find snickers wrappers and poptops just about anywhere. I've bow-hunted elk in the nastiest places you can find, bivyed at night, and I always find evidence that someone else had been there. It's not deepest Africa, it's not the insect infested dense rain forest of southeast Asia. And neither Native Americans, or subsequent peoples, who killed mammoths and grizzlies and mountain lions and bobcats have ever obtained a specimen from a living or dead bigfoot or a credible photograph of this population of huge creatures.

Not to mention the fact that the reports of bigfoot don't occur in remote inaccessible areas anyway. So the 21st century America = 19th Africa nonsense is moot, anyway. Or do you want to say to 98% of the continental US: "your bigfoot isn't real. All your reports are bogus. Only the bigfoot who might live in inaccessible places where we've never gone to see him, and of whom we have no proof or even evidence, is real?" There's no logic in that position.

imho.

Edited October 2, 2010 by parnassus

[Huntster]

And neither Native Americans, or subsequent peoples, who killed mammoths and grizzlies and mountain lions and bobcats have ever obtained a specimen from a living or dead bigfoot or a credible photograph of this population of huge creatures.

That's a claim.

Prove it.

[Guest]

Where are those confounded steak knives?

[Guest RayG]

Repeating the Big Lie a million times won't make it the truth.

Have modern maps been charted or not?

The area has NOT been explored/charted in the way you are implying it has been.

Pray tell, HOW have I been implying the maps have been explored/charted? I've already said it doesn't require tramping through every square inch on foot.

Topo maps are made from aerial and sattelite photos, not armies of surveyors tramping all over the place.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, 1,000 times yes, armies of surveyors tramping over every square inch on foot is not a requirement. I've never argued otherwise. It doesn't negate the fact that the area was still explored/charted. You just need to toss out thoughts that explored = men on foot traipsing through the bush. Did you go to the link I provided and try to find a blank spot, completely unexplored/uncharted anywhere within the USA? Let me know if you find one.

Just curious Mulder, have you ever used a topographical map to traverse an unfamiliar area?

Yes you have, repeatedly. Stop being disingenuous. You continue to claim that somehow topo maps prove that the area counts as "explored" in the sense that man now knows exactly what's there and what isn't. They don't.

Not sure I'm interpreting correctly what you mean by "man now knows exactly what's there and what isn't", but I don't recall ever making that claim. Like it or not, topo maps are based on exploration/charting of a particular area, and reflect the terrain of that particular area. They don't show squatch huts, farmer Brown's new barn, nor downed planes (sorry Kerchak), but they do show rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, and other natural terrain. If you and Kerchak are trying to argue that maps don't show downed aircraft, I won't disagree, but there's no reason they should show a downed plane.

And speaking of downed planes... the implication seems to be that if the USA were thoroughly explored/charted there wouldn't be any missing planes. (if I'm understanding Kerchak's argument correctly)

Say all 100 homes in my city neighborhood have brand new rooftops installed, and the updated Google earth/maps show those brand new rooftops. They've been explored/charted, not only by the original contractors on foot, but aerially as well. If I go up to my rooftop and slide a nickle under one of the shingles, is anyone going to find it walking around on those 100 rooftops? Google earth/maps isn't going to reveal the hidden nickle either, even if updated again, so how is anyone going to stumble across the hidden nickle? Now, instead of hiding the nickle, I just toss it up on my roof. Google earth/maps is still not likely to see/find it, and unless someone walks around on each of the 100 rooftops looking intently, they likely aren't going to stumble across it either. What if all the rooftops had grass sod instead of shingles? Would anyone find the nickle even if they're looking for it? If the cable guy goes up there to run some wiring next to the chimney, is he going to notice the nickle buried in the grass?

I just don't see the comparison between missing planes and bigfoot, and it has very little to do with whether an area has been explored/charted. People don't see missing planes crossing the road, walking through fields, swimming in lakes, or doing nearly any other activity bigfoot has supposedly been witnessed doing. Ah, you say bigoot is even harder to find because he's NOT static, he can move around and elude us. Yes, but that doesn't explain the stupid squatches. The ones that raid dumpsters, cross highways, interact with humans, or die stupid accidental deaths. Squatches do die, right?

RayG

[Huntster]

And speaking of downed planes... the implication seems to be that if the USA were thoroughly explored/charted there wouldn't be any missing planes. (if I'm understanding Kerchak's argument correctly)

You are not "understanding" the "implications" correctly.

Believers point at the missing aircraft reality as evidence that it is easy not to be able to find things in the woods, even though we have radar that assist in telling us where the aircraft went down, the fact that aircraft are large, the fact that downed aircraft don't try to hide, the fact that almost every aircraft that goes down is searched for, the fact that sometimes there are survivors who try to attract attention, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Denialists deny all the above with all manner of derailments because of the threat those realities pose to their position of denial.

[Guest RayG]

The implication I was addressing however, was the one that Kerchak seemed to be arguing back in post #137 when he said,

Hence my pondering of "Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?". The news story of the missing plane doesn't suggest that.

Kerchak appears to be saying that if the USA were thoroughly explored/charted there wouldn't be any missing planes.

And I even mentioned Kerchak specifically.

RayG

[Guest]

^Your broader implication remains that somehow topo maps means that we know exactly what animals are and what animals are NOT in an area.

That is patently false, given the way topo maps are made.

That is the point. How many bears show up on satellite photos? How many moose, etc?

Yet they DO exist along with millions and millions of other animals in that very area being photographed.

Same with aerial photography. Go flying over a stretch of wilderness and you aren't going to see even 1% of the animal life that's there.

[Guest RayG]

Not sure how you're getting that implication as I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I specifically said "topo maps are based on exploration/charting of a particular area, and reflect the terrain of that particular area. They don't show squatch huts, farmer Brown's new barn, nor downed planes (sorry Kerchak), but they do show rivers, lakes, mountains, valleys, and other natural terrain."

I made no mention whatsoever of animals, mentioned terrain twice (underlined this time), and no matter how you slice it, terrain does not equate to wildlife. Were you confused because I didn't specifically say that topo maps DON'T show animals? I'm truly puzzled how you came to your conclusion based upon what I've written. Might it be an assumption on your part instead of an implication on mine?

RayG