So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest parnassus]

...There is a plethora of evidence out there. If the laws of probability are valid, there IS something out there. Science can't just apply it's laws when it benefits them. ...

There you have three of the biggest fallacies in bigfootery. Let me try to set you straight.

1. The "evidence" you speak of is not specific to an unclassified primate. eg a twisted tree limb is only evidence that something happened to the tree limb.

2. You don't understand the "laws of probability;" you confuse the common meanings of "chance" and "possible" with how such terms are used when applying these ideas under the "laws of probability." Its the same elementary mistake Bill Munns makes in his report, and its just painfully obvious to any scientist: This is not a coin flipping experiment or even a lottery. You can't arbitrarily assign a non-zero probability. If you do, you are begging the question. In fact, the reverse is true: A real understanding of what you call "the laws of probability" is what makes scientists, wildlife authorities and our elected representatives think the likelihood of a "Bigfoot" is so low as to not warrant the expenditure of resources. That likelihood diminishes with every passing hour since the scientifically-minded europeans reached these shores hundreds of years ago, and also with every unconfirmed report and blobsquatch and hoax. And with every mile driven on our roads, and with every trailcam sold, etc. (not to mention the low likelihood that there is a primate with all the qualities attributed to it by the Bigfoot believers).

3. No one has more to gain than scientists from the discovery of an unclassified primate.

Edited October 7, 2011 by parnassus

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Well if it's only those caves we can't find that are hiding the bigfoots, then I might suggest that those caves are just as interesting as those bigfoots!

Just as interesting as my window that tells me there is no Sun; absence of sunrise, sunset and rather narrow. This window is not really flawed; as a window, it's still useful as a window. :]

[Guest]

I'm accusing you of semantic footsie..........I asked you what reports you did not consider erroneous. I don't consider all reports to be anecdotal in nature. The Patterson-Gimlin film is one such example.

(bolding mine)

So I'm playing semantic footsie, but you include the PGF in the category of reports (and without making that clear in your initial question?) Irony alert!

So, to rephrase the question: From the sum total of bigfoot/sasquatch reports, which do you not consider erroneous?

Irony alert #2: Your response to a comment of mine in which I busted you for not reading my reply to your earlier question is to pose a question that is already answered in the comment to which you are responding?

"I've probably posted 1000 times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 that I will remain unconvinced of a physical bigfoot until such a time that someone collects a physical bigfoot. That's the standard required for the description of a new species, it has been that standard since the mid-18th Century, and I see no justification for relaxing that standard in the case of bigfoot."

Perhaps instead of accusing me of this or that, you might spend time reading my replies. If there's something that you don't understand, asking for clarification is a better approach than accusing me of rhetorical stunts.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

There you have three of the biggest fallacies in bigfootery. Let me try to set you straight.

1. The "evidence" you speak of is not specific to an unclassified primate. eg a twisted tree limb is only evidence that something happened to the tree limb.

Yes, and confirmation bias can tell someone different. Sometimes the counterintuitive can be a real nag. :]

[norseman]

@Norseman - Do you think an accomplished hunter would be able to correctly identify a decently sized peice of flesh with hair on it that had been shot off an animal?

Flesh is flesh.....the hair would be interesting to look at though. I could tell the difference between say Deer hair and Bear hair, but Bear hair vs. Squatch hair? I couldn't say for sure, but it might be tough for me......

At this point I'm probably trying to look for collaberating evidence like tracks on the ground.

And of course if I had reason to be suspicious, collect the sample as cleanly as possible as to not contaminate it with my DNA and freakin get it to someone who could make a accurate determination.

Edited October 7, 2011 by norseman

[Guest HairyGreek]

I have never been anywhere near a black bear carcass. I am not a hunter as you are. I guess my question is would you be able to tell the difference by sight and touch between say, a black bear or a wolf or even a skunk? These are the only animals with longer black hair in Northern America I can think of. I am trying to understand if an experienced hunter would be able to look at a flesh and hair sample and go "whoa, this looks different to me" or if he would possibly have an idea it may be something he would know to be typical.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Flesh is flesh.....the hair would be interesting to look at though. I could tell the difference between say Deer hair and Bear hair, but Bear hair vs. Squatch hair? I couldn't say for sure, but it might be tough for me......

At this point I'm probably trying to look for collaberating evidence like tracks on the ground.

And of course if I had reason to be suspicious, collect the sample as cleanly as possible as to not contaminate it with my DNA and freakin get it to someone who could make a accurate determination.

Bigfoot might taste like bear too, so I'm not sure about a taste test procedure. :]

[Guest HairyGreek]

Huckster or any other folks who are avid hunters feel free to chime in. I know I am getting off-topic and I apologize.

[kitakaze]

I'm a skeptic. I love the idea of bigfoot and I dearly want it to exist. The reports fascinate me, as do many of the images, the track casts and some of the audio recordings. I'm not here to mock or feel superior. I'm here because I'm captivated by bigfoot and the possibility that it's real. But as I say, I'm an utter skeptic. I'm proof it's possible to be this and to find bigfoot enthralling. I'm not closed-minded or blinkered - there's a point where I would be convinced that the animal exists. I'm not there at the moment, though.

Being skeptical doesn't mean being immovable or stubborn or choosing to occupy some high-ground from which to deride others. It's also not personal. But I sense it does become so for some believers, simply because, to reduce it right down, they're saying they've seen something, and the skeptics are replying that they don't believe the something they saw exists. The implication is that the witness is wrong (nobody likes to be wrong), lying (nobody likes to be called a liar) or possibly deliberately misled (nobody likes to be gullible). For such people it's a personal attack and that's that.

I'd be upset if most people on the BFF thought that skeptics were poisoning the BFF well. It simply isn't true that skeptics can't, or for some reason shouldn't have a genuine interest in bigfoot. I really think they're not here to persuade anyone that the animal doesn't exist or to ridicule those who have had encounters or do otherwise believe. I do understand that it looks like they (we) are perverse for visiting and posting on a site like this but I think most are here because the subject is simply fascinating.

That would be the rational argument.

And then there is the emotional appeal...

Saskeptic

So your argument is that a creature the size of Bigfoot cannot live in the forest of our Nation? And the the creatures that not just me but a whole lot of eye witnessess have seen and expieranced is just a figure that is just in thier imagination?Even the witenesses that go back to the 1800's must all be liars.This whole mess with these creatures must be one giant conspiracy because we all planned this together,all these witnesses came together at one time and said that "hey people lets start a bigfoot story and get the world in on this and see how many we can get to believe in this"Yes i can truely see this happening .conspiricy at its best,people of all kinds banding together to come up with the idea like this.

It is basically saying that we are all liars and we are all in on this to fool a nation.But then again who cares cuase I am just full of it who knows nothing.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

I have never been anywhere near a black bear carcass. I am not a hunter as you are. I guess my question is would you be able to tell the difference by sight and touch between say, a black bear or a wolf or even a skunk? These are the only animals with longer black hair in Northern America I can think of. I am trying to understand if an experienced hunter would be able to look at a flesh and hair sample and go "whoa, this looks different to me" or if he would possibly have an idea it may be something he would know to be typical.

About the Bolded part - Since we are animals; I can think of a few more interesting animals with long black hair. :]

Edit to add: Sorry about the ambiguous nature of this picture

Edited October 7, 2011 by HucksterFoot

[BeachFoot]

There you have three of the biggest fallacies in bigfootery. Let me try to set you straight.

1. The "evidence" you speak of is not specific to an unclassified primate. eg a twisted tree limb is only evidence that something happened to the tree limb.

Twisted tree limbs don't impress me, either. Hell, I've got random twisted tree limbs 20 feet from my house and I don't think "Sasquatch" every time I look at them. I'm referring to actual sightings, tracks, interactions, etc.. I'm not saying that every sighting, track, interaction, etc. IS evidence of a Sasquatch. What I'm saying is that when the data is taken as a whole it is indicative of the possibility.

2. You don't understand the "laws of probability;" you confuse the common meanings of "chance" and "possible" with how such terms are used when applying these ideas under the "laws of probability." Its the same elementary mistake Bill Munns makes in his report, and its just painfully obvious to any scientist: This is not a coin flipping experiment or even a lottery. You can't arbitrarily assign a non-zero probability. If you do, you are begging the question. In fact, the reverse is true: A real understanding of what you call "the laws of probability" is what makes scientists, wildlife authorities and our elected representatives think the likelihood of a "Bigfoot" is so low as to not warrant the expenditure of resources. That likelihood diminishes with every passing hour since the scientifically-minded europeans reached these shores hundreds of years ago, and also with every unconfirmed report and blobsquatch and hoax. And with every mile driven on our roads, and with every trailcam sold, etc. (not to mention the low likelihood that there is a primate with all the qualities attributed to it by the Bigfoot believers).

Low likelihood works for me. I'll take a healthy dose of scientific curiosity and a low likelihood over a "zero" chance, any day. I don't buy it. Scientifically, there's an impossible likelihood that bumblebees can fly, too. All of the knowledge and advances science has gained and made over the last few centuries, in my opinion, has made it close-minded and arrogant.

3. No one has more to gain than scientists from the discovery of an unclassified primate.

My point, as well as the source of my frustration, exactly. Science has everything to gain and nothing to lose. They are happy to spend millions of man hours and billions of dollars sending protons in circles in search of something most don't think exist (which I think is VERY cool, by the way....I just doubt the return on the investment) but we can't set aside a few million dollars to figure out if we've got a relative wandering around the woods? Excuse me for having an issue with that.

edited to get rid of the sausage-finger mistakes.

Edited October 7, 2011 by BeachFoot

[norseman]

There you have three of the biggest fallacies in bigfootery. Let me try to set you straight.

1. The "evidence" you speak of is not specific to an unclassified primate. eg a twisted tree limb is only evidence that something happened to the tree limb.

I think most do not give the Bear enough credit for their prehensile grasping ability in their paws. They are NOT a large dog, they do things with their fore arms that are down right spooky human like. Even without thumbs.

3. No one has more to gain than scientists from the discovery of an unclassified primate.

True, but in the case of science it can be often times very stubborn to new ideas. In the case of the hobbit many scientists have argued that the discovery was nothing more than a sickly midget Homo Sapien. It's their job to be stubborn I get that, new discoveries are scrutinized throughly before acceptance. And of course in the case of a lacking type speciman science can seem downright snooty about cryptozoology. And as well science can sometimes be rather smug about it's understanding of the natural world. They welcome a discovery of a new hominiod from the rift valley from 5 million years ago because they rather expect that. It fits their constructed understanding of history. On the other hand a discovery of a small version of Homo Erectus from only 10,000 years old from SE ASIA! Perposterous! Piltdown man alert!

Again, I lack the faith that many people do that the scientific community has a strong understanding of the primate family tree. I think there are many many species that reside in that tree that either may yet still be discovered (as fossils, or possibly living) or more likely will never ever be known to man at all (either as fossils or blinking out of existence as we speak).

[Guest HairyGreek]

About the Bolded part - Since we are animals; I can think of a few more interesting animals with long black hair. :]

Edit to add: Sorry about the ambiguous nature of this picture

Can't see your pic...firewall at work. I am sure it's a screamer though...

[norseman]

I have never been anywhere near a black bear carcass. I am not a hunter as you are. I guess my question is would you be able to tell the difference by sight and touch between say, a black bear or a wolf or even a skunk? These are the only animals with longer black hair in Northern America I can think of. I am trying to understand if an experienced hunter would be able to look at a flesh and hair sample and go "whoa, this looks different to me" or if he would possibly have an idea it may be something he would know to be typical.

I have two rugs on my bed, one is a black Bear that I took on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska and the other is a Canadian Wolf that I bought from a hide and fur company. The wolf is gray with black highlights, but if that Wolf was solid black? It would be difficult to tell the difference. The length of hair is about the same, and both have inner fur and guard hairs.

Color is never a good determining factor with Bear or Wolf for that matter, and I think most hunters would be looking for other visual cues to tell the difference (such as tracks or scat). Only a biologist with a microscope is going to give you a definitive answer if it's two small hair/flesh samples.

Edited October 7, 2011 by norseman

[Guest HairyGreek]

Thanks Norseman. The jury is still out on the Sierra Kills story for so many reasons it makes my head spin, but I kind of expected an experienced hunter to be able to tell something about the flesh sample that the General has said he found. Guess I was wrong. It could literally be anything. I guess that is good and bad news.