Bigfoot found??? - Page 6

Re: Bigfoot found???

You can't point out how wrong I am until it's proven one way or the other I will now watch your video.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Name the legitimate scientific journals in which their data and methodology have been examined, critiqued, and found to be sound. Unless you can do so, your claims of their "scientific" approach are unfounded.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Speaking for myself, I'm in "I love the idea of Bigfoots walking around, but the incredibly crap "evidence" provided to support the theory leads me to belive that it is folk lore, not real."

Your in the camp of "Anything is possible, so Bigfoots exist." Nothing will change your mind. My mind can be changed in a second, show me a living bigfoot, or a skull from a freshly dead one. I'll instantly belive in them at that time. Because that's how the scientific method works, and it's a beautiful and amazing process. Science tests theroies. Pseudo-Science and woo throw Scientific terms around to "prove" unfounded beliefs with a set result, not just in the area of bigfoot, but other more serious matters like "all nuclear things are bad", global warming, etc.

1. Bigfoot exists, and here's why.

2. The evidence for bigfoot does not hold up to scrutiny and review, it is very unlikely that Bigfoot exists and we should concentrate on other matters.

If you can't see the difference in those statments, then I really don't know what to say.

Re: Bigfoot found???

See definition #1 as it applies to the scientific method:

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Besides, it's not their hypothesis that makes them crackpots, it's their lack of any evidence, except that which doesn't have anything to do with actual science.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Correct. Contrary to the accusations of "rednecking", my point was that unless your evidence stands up to peer review, it might as well come from a truck driver. It's not "proof" judt because a scientist gives evidence, it's only proof when the evidence holds up to scrutiny. None that I've seen has even been submitted for, never mind passed, true scientific scrutiny.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Knowing the speed at which it was recorded is important, because it must be played back at the same speed for proper analysis. If you play it back slower or faster than the speed at which it was recorded, the creature's motion will not be correct and cannot be properly analyzed. It's like judging the speed of a UFO from two still photographs taken an unknown time interval apart. It just can't be done. So without knowing the frame rate, there can be no proper analysis, and without a proper analysis, the film becomes worthless.
Always? Either Bigfoot exists, or it doesn't. I don't see much room for gray area. A properly-stated claim is either true, or it isn't.
No, we're simply in "I'll believe it when I see sufficient evidence" mode. There's a huge difference.
Don't equate conjecture with discovery. Adherence to the Scientific Method has led to far more and far greater discoveries than all other human endeavors, combined.
I know this, at its face, sounds logical. But it isn't. Basically, you're challenging us to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. It can't be done. We cannot prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. Ever.

But we don't have to. The one making the claim of existence is the one with the burden of proof, and that person is wrong by default until said proof has survived scrutiny (as in peer review).

In any case, this characterization casts our argument in an unfair light. We are NOT claiming that Bigfoot doesn't exist. We are simply claiming that there's not enough evidence to prove that Bigfoot exists. Again, (as Russel points out) there's a huge difference.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Well, you got me. All the things I have mentioned were from people in the scientific community using scientific means to form an opinion. Not in the form of Scientific journals. We both know the research hasn't reached that plateau. Meager evidence does not equal unfounded.

This video shows practically all the evidence I mentioned:
YouTube - Sasquatch Bigfoot: Legend Meets Science 5/5

Re: Bigfoot found???

Then I have you at a disadvantage. Those of us believe can prove it....eventually.

Correct you don't have to. We BELIEVE Bigfoot exists. We don't claim that he exists. Claims come later along with the irrefutable proof. See, you got us all wrong.

Re: Bigfoot found???

That's all we're asking. Just don't expect us to buy into it until you do.
So your belief in Bigfoot is a matter of faith, and not not based on proof? I must concede I wasn't aware that was the case all along. I'm sorry I got it wrong. All this time, I've been questioning your standards of scientific proof, thinking that was the basis of your assertions. I completely understand that matters of faith are a personal choice, and I would never have questioned your belief on that basis. You have the right to believe whatever you want.

However, if your belief in Bigfoot is a matter of faith and not science, then why have you engaged us in a discussion about the scientific merits of Bigfoot's existence?

Re: Bigfoot found???

Me dies!!

Bryan, "using scientific means" would be a carefully crafted analysis, subjected to peer review, for release in a scientific journal. You cannot claim these "scientists" are using "scientific means" in the same paragraph in which you definitively say they are not using scientific means. History Channel "mockumentaries" or YouTube videos are not scientific journals, whether the participants claim to be "scientists" or not.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Not true!
Did you watch the video?
These are scientists doing tests on the Bigfoot evidence. The program was Bigfoot: Legend meets science. And it proves one thing. All of their opinions were in favor of Bigfoot. And YESscientific means were used to determine their opinions. Where do you get the idea this is fiction? The fact that you can do a quick google search of any mentioned to find their credintials? I'm giving you hard proof by real people, and you continue to back peddle, and drag the idea through the mud.
The majority of the scientific community continues to thumb their nose at the thought of Bigfoot. Your exploiting that fact and using it against me.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Did you? Let's recap the conclusions of the video you posted:

Finger print expert: Cop with years of experience. Looked at the "dermal ridges" in the cast, and found them not human. He then hypothesized that they could be from a primate in North America, which I believe is far, far from his field of expertise as you don;t learn monkey fingerprints when your a cop. The conclusion that they are not human does not equal evidence that Bigfoot exists. I'm ignoring the fact that the casts are most likely bullshit in the first place.

Audio Expert - Much like above, said he doesn't know what it is, but could be a human like primate. This is not proof of bigfoot.

Stride experts on the memorial day tape - Said the "creature" had a gate that matched that of a man, and couldn't explain why he raised in height about 8 inches at the end of the tape. he says that IF it was acreature, it could of lifted it's young. The other if is, it really was a man (doesn't even look like a creature in that clip) and he just stood up and walked properly at the end. Not proof of bigfoot.

DNA expert - All test showed negative to bigfoot, with the hair sample being human.

The group at the end, one dude was basing the gate and such from the patterson film, which is already dodgy so any conclusions based on it are in-admissable. The other guy with the skookum cast says he doesn't know. The others are basing their educated guesses again on the patterson film and questioned print casts.

None of the scientific conclusions proves bigfoot. It's another in a long line of dodgy TV specials. Why would they appear on these shows? Well, none of them say "Bigfoot absolutly exists", they all say, "it's possible", so they don't lose credibility, get a pay cheque, and get to be on TV.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Follow along closely . . . It does not matter IF they are scientists, or IF they use psuedo-scientific language, or IF they use scientific type procedures . . IF they don't submit the work to a scientific journal for peer review . . . IT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!!


Actually, it's the entire scientific community that is using it against you. That's the whole point. The fact is, Bigfoot and those who claim to have "proof" of it's existence are the laughing stock of people who advance knowledge using the scientific method; who are used to proving a hypothesis according to the strict rules of science; rules which have more to do with the advance of knowledge than any other process ever invented by man.

This should be a clue for you to realize that you have no basis for your belief, outside of faith. It's not the basis for a claim of unfairness or exploitation by me. You made the claim that science supports Bigfoot's existence, and then claim foul when real science doesn't agree. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I said it's possible that Bigfoot exists according to the evidence. I never claimed anything. These are my beliefs. What a tangled web you people weave.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Yes I know. I stated that about 10 posts ago. I could also care less.


Since when are people a "laughing stock" for searching for an unknown species? Just curious, because at least 1 unknown is discovered every single day. May be 98% are insects, but they are still a species.
You believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. Let's just leave it at that ok.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Yeah, faking dermal ridges on a fake footprint.....sounds logical.
There is a possibility, though isn't there? And I never claimed this to be proof, just something else to consider.
What the hell? That video is a hoax. That's why they put it in the show. After all they have to have some subjectivity, or a different point of view.
They could base the whole show on the Patterson film critique, as it is very substantial, and thorough research into it. The Skookum cast..who knows.

I'm glad you watched the video. It proves to me you can have an open mind.
There may be hope for you yet

Re: Bigfoot found???

Ha ha, I'll always watch this stuff, sucker for punishment I guess.

On the dermal ridges though. The idea isn't that they fake dermal ridges, but the dermal ridges are caused from the casting making process itself when the fake prints have a cast made of them, as they show up when fake prints are cast in the way that the supposed "real" bigfoot prints are.

I don't know if that makes sense, the circular logic of this thread has done my head in, I swear I saw a unicorn across the street an hour ago!!!!

Re: Bigfoot found???

I never thought of this. Funny thing is, your right.
All the alleged sightings since the 60's(there was an explosion of them in the 70's) through current day, add to that the different locations throughout the world. Everywhere from Tibet to the remote forests of Russia all the way to the Pacific Northwest. Minus all the hoaxes, and redneck search party's, and the pro's still outnumber the con's by a long shot.
But yes, faith is part of it. You gotta have faith.

Re: Bigfoot found???

Makes perfect sense.

This thread could end wars.

Re: Bigfoot found???

By that logic Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and imaginary friends all certainly exist - because they've all been attested by numerous witness over thousands of years and in every corner of the Earth. Ditto ghosts, "UFOs", angels, demons, werewolves and vampires. Verifiable physical evidence? (Not easily faked footprints or garbage photos - I'm talking DNA, skeletons, or living specimens.) That isn't there. Lots of anecdotes sure, but Santa has more.


What is "illogical" about trying to make the fake you're using to fool people as good a fake as possible? This is like saying "Yeah, fake microprinting on a fake $50 bill.... sounds logical." Well, yes, as a matter of fact it does if you want to pass that bogus $50.



Minus those, is there anything left?

Regards,

Joe

Re: Bigfoot found???

OUCH!

Re: Bigfoot found???

Well to be fair to Bigfoot the Giant & Colossal squid was an urban legend for about 3000 years (aka. the kraken, leviathan, sea monster, et cetera) before they started being caught accidently in the late 19th century.

But we do know......

*In the Gevaudan region of France in the 17th through 20th centuries werewolves attacked people 300+ times (Including at least 113 deaths). Bigfoot has killed & eaten nobody so far...... the moral of this story: while still very unlikely you're more likely to be eaten by a werewolf than an heretofor undiscovered primate.

*Walking dead vampires remain a "yet to be discovered" (and what exactly do we call people looking for them: cryptozoologists? cryptonecrologists? cryptoethnobiologist?). But we do have plenty of necrophiliacs, goths, hematolagnians (aka. sex-vampires/blood fetishists/persons suffering from 'Renfield's Disorder/sanguinarians), cutters, masochists, BDD, and the Irish (who get second degree burns from direct sunlight).... the moral here: You're still not likely to find bigfoot, but looking at other people's internet history of porn material is a great way to kill time at work.

Re: Bigfoot found???

In addition to sightings by boatfulls of witnesses, physical remains of giant squid beaks were recovered from the bodies of sperm whales all the time. Add in the fact these were biologically identical to smaller size squid beaks, or that sperm whales often carried the scars from squid suckers that were also giant versions of known marks, and you have a little more than just urban legend. Have an entire pack of cubscouts armed with cell phone cameras get a shot a Yeti, or show me a Bigfoot jaw recovered from the body of a cougar or wolf, and I'll be less skeptical.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I wanted to join in the discussion again, but most of it looks like this.



...which is not unusual for an After Hours thread.

Does anyone know the population density needed for large primates (Hominids primarily, considering the size implications of the Bigfoot "evidence") to thrive or to simply maintain a population size over a long period of time? I'm curious about whether there is a well-studied species or subspecies of primates that is as solitary as the Bigfoots (Bigfeet? Bigfooti?) are reported to be. Certainly, human history has ample evidence of people living a secluded existence once separated from the larger population, but that's not the likely case with Bigfoot. We could speculate that Bigfoot is an endangered species which has greatly diminished in number in recent history. My general impression is that the longer gestation periods and smaller litter sizes (Octomom notwithstanding) of larger primates would require a reasonably large population to sustain the species over time. I'm not a student of the Bigfoot lore, but I don't recall hearing anyone claiming discovery of a Bigfoot encampment or colony. It seems that most or all of the evidence consists of single tracks or footprints for a constantly moving creature - evidence with the unfortunate coincidence of being easily faked. Have any of these cryptozoologists proposed a theory about how these creatures survive that matches the scant evidence?

Alternative theory:
Have you seen "Highlander"? Bigfoot is like that but with pointy sticks instead of swords. Right now there are only two of them left and they are having as much difficulty finding each other as everyone else. Occasionally they shave head to toe and blend in with lumberjacks for some drinking and cavorting. There can be only one! You can't prove me wrong...

Brad

Re: Bigfoot found???

Awww Jeez, now you're telling me Bigfoot is immortal!

Re: Bigfoot found???

If they start playing banjos they're all cousins.

Re: Bigfoot found???

See definition 4, "a mere assumption or guess" which is almost exactly what I said above.

Re: Bigfoot found???

I wrote it, I think I know what definition I intended to use.