Bigfoot found??? (1 Viewer)

[Bob Turnbull]

So what does that do to all those eyewitness sightings? And if they did see something and it was at night, how well did they see it?

If I'm being picky, it goes back to the fact that you need some strong evidence to help prove something that would be astonishing. And "I think I saw something in the woods last night" just doesn't cut it.

 

[drobbins]

Bigfoot had eaten some bad berries and was going to have a bad case of diarrhea. He dug his hole and was doing his business. He notices a cute white furry bunny close by who was also taking a dump. Bigfoot asks the bunny if he every has any issues with poo sticking to his white fur and staining it. The bunny replies that as long as he has been alive he has never had poo stick to his fur. Bigfoot questions this and asks again "never?" To which the white bunny proudly replies "NEVER!" So Bigfoot picks up the white bunny and wipes himself with it.

 

[Holadem]

Scully is an idiot. While people have never needed any help to be clueless about science, I believe that her character may have contributed to people's warped perception of skepticism. Scully would stubbornly REFUSE to alter her positions in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence. Science doesn't work that way. Not good science anyway.

I watched the first few season of the X-Files for the 1st time last year, and that characterization really stuck in my craw. It is one of the most popular TV shows of all times, and there is no knowing how many out there think that science is truly that narrow as a result of the show.

--
H

 

[Greg_R]

There have been 2 hour long shows on both of these topics.

 

[Bryan^H]

The Dermal ridges were from Plaster casts of solid Bigfoot prints left in a firm mud(where most, and the best prints are found).
Dermal Ridges can't be faked.(think of someone trying to fake fingerprints) and the cast molds that had the ridges made instant believers of the scientests who examined them.
This is the proof that solidifies that the creature does, or did exist.
Not debatable. They were real, and proven real by scientists.


Audio recordings were all of a like species(different times, and places) that sound similar. The zoology staff that examined them all came to the conclusion that it was neither human or any known animal. Unknown primate.

One did say it resembled a African gorilla, but was still a bit different.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

I find Bigfoot fascinating since there are so many sightings in so many places over so much time, yet no real evidence. I always wondered why nobody had at least found a dead one or body parts or something. Certainly with DNA science that type of evidence could be authenticated if real.

Yet if Bigfoot does exist, it's not that different from known species, just basically a big ape... which makes it more likely to me that it might exist, as opposed to something like a talking dog or a cow that can fly or a centaur or Nessie or whatever.

 

[TravisR]

If it makes you feel any better, she gave in after about seven seasons.

 

[Todd H]

Riiiiiight...

Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot 'Evidence' (Skeptical Briefs September 2006)

 

[Bob Turnbull]

From the article linked in the previous post:

Which is why science needs to include the rest of the community in iterative checks and balances on theories and results. Anyone can fall prey to their own biases going into an experiment (which is also why things like double blind experimental techniques have been used in other types of research). It's quite a beautiful system really.

 

[Ruz-El]

As I said....

Also, from the bigfoot research site:

oh right... they don't have pictures of the tracks, they just say they are real...

 

[Bryan^H]

Yeah, and the article was written by a skeptic trying to debunk the prints. Click on the link in the article. I think someone that studied fingerprints for a living would know what they are talking about. Maybe not. From the view of a skeptic he should just be considered a lying fool.

 

[Bryan^H]

Yes. I will try and find the book where it's stated. There were other casts with dermal ridges that made the rounds in the 80's. I forgot if they were all private owned or at a University.

 

[Bryan^H]

02.27.2008 - Bigfoot casts a philosophical shadow

Some good points are made.

 

[Ruz-El]

from the article

"Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost. According to the December 2005 Bigfoot Times, Meldrum is quoted as saying, "However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley's] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site." This is unnecessary, as Crowley has always maintained the Onion Mountain cast was a specific case and the results were the product of this particular set of conditions. But Meldrum is wrong. The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive "evidence" for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track."

They followed a scientific procedure, and found the tracks false. This makes this formal look a good procedure for testing other sites. the finger print guy was wrong. It happens. Look at the Zodiac murder case where different finger print analysts came to different conclusions. And Zodiac has documented physical evidence, as opposed to being largly a mythical beast....

 

[cafink]

Contrary to the frustratingly popular usage of the term, "skeptic" does not mean "disbeliever." A skeptic is not someone who dismisses claims out-of-hand, or who sets out specifically to debunk something. It comes from the Greek word meaning "to look at something," and that is what a real skeptic does--look at the evidence, following it to whatever conclusion it leads. For some reason, many mistakenly believe it to mean assuming a claim to be false from the beginning, then looking specifically for evidence that fits that assumption.

In the case of Chilcutt's "Dermal Ridge Examination Report," he has, as explained in Todd H's link, published his findings in no scientific journals, and has not provided his evidence for examination by anyone who is not already a bigfoot believer. Why not? A discovery like this would be huge. Why is the best evidence of it a single webpage of dubious veracity? Until Chilcutt is willing to share his evidence with the scientific community, why shouldn't he be considered a "lying fool"?

The claim that the evidence for bigfoot is "Not debatable. They were real, and proven real by scientists" is asinine.

 

[Bryan^H]

Ummm no. I was talking about the prints. Hard evidence is not asnine. It's fact.

 

[Ruz-El]

And the fact is the prints are fakes, or unattainable for non-biased study....

 

[cafink]

Hard evidence is not asinine. Unfortunately, that the prints in question constitute hard evidence of bigfoot's existence has yet to be established.

 

[RobertR]

Carl makes an excellent point. Bryan, you cannot dismiss an analysis done by a skeptic simply because he's a skeptic. Your only rational rebuttal would be to critique his methodology, the accuracy of his facts, etc. Otherwise you would be in the position of claiming that ONLY a "believer" should be listened to, which would be silly. And "studying fingerprints for a living" doesn't automatically make someone right. His analysis can be critiqued just like the skeptics you want to dismiss.

 

[drobbins]