Bigfoot found???

Re: Bigfoot found???

Has anyone seen the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" were they debunk certain crypto-related myths?

Growing up, I was a huge believer of Bigfoot - and I had proof. I thought "Harry and the Hendersons" was a documentary for way too long. But recently, I've started to no longer believe in Bigfoot or Nessie.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Doesn't sound very "relevant" (or credible) to me.

Re: Bigfoot found???

"real" base findings on real evidence, not conjecture. That's the beauty of the scientific process that allows it to grow. The problem with Cryptozoology is:

1. No one in the field has ever presented evidence that has passed a review board, hence it's pseudoscience (which typically means humbug).

2. No one can has ever come up with what qualifies you to be a cryptozoologist have they? It's not taught in schools, people just claim the title.

Cryptozoology being recognized by the scientific community is really more of a polite thing, in that science is not about proving things wrong, it's about testing to see what's right. anything is possible in science, it's a case of where the lack of evidence for the proof of bigfoot works to the conclusion that the chance of there being a bigfoot or a yeti is highly unlikely.

Unless you finally found one Bryan, hope you had your camera with you...

Re: Bigfoot found???

See that's the beauty of it. Practically everything invented, or created was just a crackpot idea at some point. But when it comes to pass, it's pure science. Imagination becomes reality

Re: Bigfoot found???

YouTube - 4-09 In Search Of... The Abominable Snowman (Part 2 of 3)


Credible. If you don't believe that, watch part 3.

Re: Bigfoot found???

No, this is not true at all. After adoption of the scientific method, everything "invented or created" was put through a series of mental and physical routines, which collected data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. This data had to be be observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. If the observations are explained by specific principles of reasoning and hypothesis, then they are not "crackpot" by definition.

Those people who hypothesize the existence of Bigfoot, Nessie, Sasquatch, the Bumble, etc., have produced no observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, and thusly, they are crackpots.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Your over analyzing. It is very true. The search for Bigfoot(and the Loch Ness monster) is a scientific study. Footprints, strands of hair, and recordings of an unknown primate have all come back(after analyzation) to be unknown of any indigenous species of the Pacific Northwest. Therefor leading a researcher to form an educated guess that Bigfoot is plausible. The search continues.
The Bigfoot, and Loch Ness monster once existed, and roamed the earth. And it is possible that they may still inhabit remote corners of the earth.
Nothing "crackpot" about investigating the evidence is there? No.

Ever hear of the Coelacanth? Thought to be extinct for many millions of years. If there were an intensive search for one of these fish before it appeared in Hawaii , your ideas would hold no value.

Re: Bigfoot found???

No serious scientist is currently looking for bigfoot. Show us a university study on these strands of hair and what not, one that IS NOT affiliated with a cryptozoology site or book. There's a huge logic leap in "Unknown=Bigfoot exists."

Once existed with unicorns and sprites... everything is remotely possible, this is incredibly unlikely. They are 100% sure that there is no Nessie in the Loch. Nothing remotely like it has shown on any scan.


You just killed your own argument. We've stumbled upon species thought extinct in the OCEAN, yet we can't find Bigfoot in a relatively small are of the NW United states that's regularly searched specifically for Bigfoot, and even more tresspassed by hunters and hikers? This alone speaks more volume to there being more evidence to the non-existance of bigfootm then proof that there is one.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Jeebus, not the fricken Coelocanth.

The Coelocanth lived in the vast ocean. Not a relatively small lake or a wild area that is slowly being made smaller and smaller by man, leading one to believe that eventually, ol' Bigfoot would very soon take a dislike to the encroachment and raise his furry head.

As to your "Footprints, strands of hair, and recordings of an unknown primate have all come back(after analyzation) to be unknown of any indigenous species of the Pacific Northwest" statement, that "analysis" is all done by an incestuous group of "cryptozoologists", true believers all.

As Russel said, if anyone can claim to be an "expert cryptozoologist", any analysis by a "cryptozoologist" isn't worth the paper it is printed on. Besides, hundreds of those so called footprints have been proven to be fake, yet I bet more than a couple "expert cryptozoologists" swore they were real right up to (and past the point) they were proven a hoax. Not the type of detached analysis one wants to bet the farm on, huh?

Oh and one more thing about the Coelocanth - Even though it lived in the vast ocean . . . they actually found one, and it wasn't a halloween costume and pig entrails.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I don't bet the farm an any blasted hoaxers. And for your information I know a hoax when I see one. Those rednecks can play in their 4 acres of woods, and claim they see a Bigfoot. That doesn't make it so. Your gumming up the real scientific investigators with yahoos like those clowns. You have to look for credible people in the study of Bigfoot like Grover Krantz(god rest his soul).Grover Krantz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Bigfoot found???

Their loss.


oh give me a break. Unicorns and Sprites are not real.



Fishing is a big industry. Trekking through thousands of miles of dense forests isn't.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I think the problem with Grover Krantz is
"He was a defender of the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film and a variety of casts collected by Paul Freeman and Ivan Marx."

He defended things which were thoroughly debunked and or more politely unaccepted in review by the scientific community at large. Sounds like a case of wanting to believe instead of accepting facts.

Re: Bigfoot found???

When was the Patterson film debunked? What the heck? This is the same film that was just put through the ringer on an A&E Bigfoot special. the man in the suit theory was thrown out because of the unusual way the creature walked. THROUGH THE RINGER!!

Re: Bigfoot found???

Even if what Jeff said weren't true (and it is), just because some crackpot ideas may have been validated, it does not logically follow that this (or any particular) crackpot idea will be validated. Some, if not nearly all, crackpot ideas remain forever worthless. I should know. I'm a crackpot. And being a crackpot, I have first-hand experience that not everything imagined becomes reality.
So you freely admit, then, that the existence of Bigfoot is just a hypothesis at this point. That's good. Then you'll forgive us for not believing it until the search is over, and proof has been acquired. That's the way the Scientific Method works, after all.

Re: Bigfoot found???

The real problem with cryptozoology is that it's literally a title/description that says "I study things that are not supported by credible evidence".

By it's very nature it's absurd. The whole concept shows a fatal bias. By playing the "cryptozoology" card you're saying that you favor things that are "out there" because that's the only link between them. There's little correlation between Bigfoot, Nessie and the Chupacabra aside from the fact that the evidence that supports their existence is flimsy. If by some miracle all three were found to exist the only common ground they would have would be general biology. Is an expert on primates an expert on reptiles? No, then how can you call someone an "expert" on every scary monster some uneducated farmer sees?

It's like the conspiracy theorist who believes everything that goes against what "they" say in the "official" story.

In both cases the title (cryptozoologist, conspiracy theorist) is essentially a title meant to legitimize a psychological flaw. Ultimately it's a semantics argument.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up. Therein lies part of the problem. As well-intentioned as Mr. Krantz may have been (and I don't doubt that he was), relying on the credibility of the researchers, rather than on the credibility of the evidence itself, will, unfortunately, get you nowhere.

Evidence should be testable regardless of the source, and it should stand on its own, regardless of who produces or supports it.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Problem with the Patterson film is that Patterson couldn't tell you WHAT SPEED THE CAMERA WAS SET TO WHEN BIGFOOT WAS FILMED. If it's played at one speed, you get an amazing mythical creature captured live, at another, clearly a human in a suit. *

A&E stands for "Arts & Entertainment", and also features some dub show about psychic kids or some other garbage. The miss-information fed out on these type of shows (See NBC and PRIMETIME LIVE's top 10 unexplaned UFO encounters and the PHOENIX LIGHTS) for rating and advertising dollars.If they failed to comment on the filming speed, then they did a piss poor job. And if they did comment on the filming speed, and still say it's authentic, then they came to (IMO) a poor conclusion.

*
Filming speed

One fact which complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. The speed of the film is important because, as Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."^[19] Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct.
Krantz argues, based on an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known, a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. Based on this analysis, Krantz argues that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[w]e may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."
Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."^[20] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."^[21]
Others (including primatologist John Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz^[22]) have expressed a different opinion, contending it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."^[23] More recently, skeptic and University of Florida anthropologist David Daegling has asserted that even at 16 frame/s the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"]."^[24]


David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt

When anthropologists David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt examined the film, they concluded it was impossible to conclusively determine if the subject in the film is nonhuman, and additionally argued the flaws in the studies by Krantz and others. They noted problems of uncertainties in subject and camera positions, camera movement, poor image quality, and artifacts of subject. They concluded: ”Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence.”^[29]

Re: Bigfoot found???

More incestuous back slapping by true believers. Show me a credited university study, published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, and I'll believe you. And no, the "You scientists just don't want your world rocked" defense doesn't cut it. After all, did they tell the guy who caught the Coelocanth that he imagined it? or did the scientific community rejoice in the discovery of a "living fossil?"

To quote an anecdote which has served me well in this forum - One time a junior engineer came up to me all excited that he found a solution to a problem . . . I immediately asked him "Do you have any output?" He said no. I then replied "Then you've got nothing."

Re: Bigfoot found???

It has. Hair samples audio recordings and footprints with dermal ridges have been studied. Unknown Primate were the findings.
Put this in your pipe:YouTube - Sasquatch Bigfoot: Legend Meets Science 5/5

Re: Bigfoot found???

Speed of film isn't going to affect the motion of a creature. I've never heard of such outlandish claims.
If it was a person in a suit, he would have to have an extremely broken ankle to achieve the Patterson film wrong.

Re: Bigfoot found???

How many times do we have to remind you these "studies" have no scientific basis when done by self-described cryptozoologists who do not adhere to the scientific method, do not publish in accredited journals, and do not go through the peer-review process? I could just as easily pluck a hair from my head and have my buddy the truck driver say with "authority" that his experience in unicorn hunting tells him it positively came from a unicorn.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Yes they are. I see them in stores all the time, between the Cokes and the Pepsis.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Do you even know what a hypothesis is? It's an assumption or guess. So you must think anyone who forms a hypothesis about anything is a crackpot.

Hint: Once they have the proof, a hypothesis is no longer just a hypothesis.

Re: Bigfoot found???

This "relatively small" area you refer to is thousands of square miles of mostly untouched wilderness. In fact dozens of aircraft have crashed in this "relatively small" area since the 40's and none have been recovered due to the extreme remoteness of the area. The Pacific NW is not a "relatively small" area by any means. I would assert that it is quite possible for an undiscovered primate to exist there. I put no stock in the reported sightings in Ohio, Texas, Kansas etc. areas because there just isn't enough undisturbered territory for a viable breeding population to go unoticed/undiscovered. The Pacific NW on the other hand is a different story. I have to concede the possibility of their exitence (however unlikely) in that vast region of wildereness.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I think you missed the entire point of Jeff's critique of the "cryptos". It isn't the fact of their hypothesis, but their refusal and/or inability to use the scientific method that makes what they do useless.

Re: Bigfoot found???

What low brow Bigfoot research are you claiming comes from truck drivers??? The people I have mentioned in all of my previous posts are upstanding educated people. Most in the scientific community. If you want to dumb down the argument with hicks, and rednecks thats your business. I'm not going there.

Re: Bigfoot found???

"Possibility" and "Probability" are two separate things. It's possible that Bigfoot, Mole Men and a UFO landing pad are hidden in the PAcific NW, the probability that these things are there are very low. With Bigfoot, again, people have specifically been looking for them for years, and NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL has come up. The only thing to come out of Bigfoot research is a cottage industry of books and film that have no scientific merit.

The audio recordings where unfounded, as they were easily replicated in wooded environments, and the dermal ridges in the casts where seriously questioned as just being swirls from the casting process itself, as opposed to from an animal. I alraedy posted links before in the thread, your repeating your argument.


As far as these experts being wrong, it happens with people with actual scientific credentials, not just self proclaimed cryptozoologists.

James Randi can tell this story better and more entertaining.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53T7ADcvqJY

It's about objectivity, not degrees.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Every type of evidence brought forth by these people(One more time footprint casts with dermal ridges, audio recordings of alleged Bigfoot, and certain hair samples taken near the prints) have all been scientifically examined. What refusal do you speak of? Stop back peddling.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Watch the video I posted on how actual legit scientists can be fooled by pseudo-scientific evidence, then you should find the published journals that are recognized by ANTHROPOLOGISTS AND ZOOLOGISTS that support Bigfoot.

Your the crack pot that the burden of proof lies on, most of us think it's woo and are happy to point out how wrong you are.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I'm repeating myself with good reason. I'm no robot. I don't deal in absolutes. There is always a gray area between yes and no. You people are in "no way in hell" mode. I'm in the "what if" mode. You see how I'm more prone to discovery than all others in this thread? I do.