New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bigfoot found??? - Page 3

post #61 of 273
8/20/08 at 4:01pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
The Bigfoot species are nocturnal. So think about how often would you see a species that has low numbers to begin with in the remotest parts of thick forests.
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.
Reply
post #62 of 273
8/20/08 at 4:19pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Tk
The mere fact that Bigfoot is so elusive leads me to believe he buries his turds, so the fact that someone found a Bigfoot scat is completely false.
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.
Reply
post #63 of 273
8/20/08 at 4:29pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Your like Scully....except with Mulder's sense of humor
Let's keep it going. I like debate.
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
Reply
post #64 of 273
8/20/08 at 4:37pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
I'm still waiting for a 12 hour miniseries on torture devices or the pornography industry.
There have been 2 hour long shows on both of these topics.
Reply
post #65 of 273
8/20/08 at 5:02pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Turnbull
You mean "3 reasons that Bigfoot MIGHT be real".

Not having spent much time looking into the details of Bigfeet, I've never heard that. But off the top of my head two things spring to mind: 1) when I leave hand prints or bare foot prints in the dirt, do I leave my dermal ridges clear enough so that a cast would pick them up? I doubt it... 2) the simpler solution is that those ridges are actually created during the process of creating those casts. I don't know of course, but it certainly sounds more plausible to me.



Unidentified sounds in the woods. Again, that could be numerous things. And likely completely different things on each recording - I highly doubt that the many recordings made all sound similar.
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.
Reply
post #66 of 273
8/20/08 at 5:55pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

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.
Reply
post #67 of 273
8/20/08 at 7:53pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
Scully would stubbornly REFUSE to alter her positions in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence.
If it makes you feel any better, she gave in after about seven seasons.
Reply
post #68 of 273
8/21/08 at 4:58am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

Riiiiiight...

Experiments Cast Doubt on Bigfoot 'Evidence' (Skeptical Briefs September 2006)
Reply
post #69 of 273
8/21/08 at 7:10am

Re: Bigfoot found???

From the article linked in the previous post:

Quote:
To my knowledge, other than a posting on the Internet, Chilcutt has published no papers on his findings, nor has anyone outside the Bigfoot community examined his claims or theories.
Bryan, you mentioned that a number of scientists have examined the casts. Were there others? One of the basic premises of the Scientific Method is that when you publish your theories or experimental findings, other scientists take a crack at them as well. They can either refute or add to the body of knowledge (and therefore reinforce a theory). The article certainly refutes it.

Quote:
Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost.
Which would only leave the audio recordings and eyewitness accounts. I don't see how you can base a belief in Bigfoot on those (at least that's my view).

Quote:
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.
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.
Reply
post #70 of 273
8/21/08 at 7:58am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

From the Skeptic link:

Quote:
A test cast shows how casting artifacts can mimic dermal ridges

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...
Reply
post #71 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:20am

Re: Bigfoot found???


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.
Reply
post #72 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:25am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Turnbull
From the article linked in the previous post:

Bryan, you mentioned that a number of scientists have examined the casts. Were there others? One of the basic premises of the Scientific Method is that when you publish your theories or experimental findings, other scientists take a crack at them as well. They can either refute or add to the body of knowledge (and therefore reinforce a theory). The article certainly refutes it.
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.
Reply
post #73 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:26am

Re: Bigfoot found???

02.27.2008 - Bigfoot casts a philosophical shadow

Some good points are made.
Reply
post #74 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:31am

Re: Bigfoot found???

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....
Reply
post #75 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:46am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Reply
post #76 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:55am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink


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

Ummm no. I was talking about the prints. Hard evidence is not asnine. It's fact.
Reply
post #77 of 273
8/21/08 at 9:58am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Ummm no. I was talking about the prints. Hard evidence is not asnine. It's fact.

And the fact is the prints are fakes, or unattainable for non-biased study....
Reply
post #78 of 273
8/21/08 at 10:03am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Ummm no. I was talking about the prints. Hard evidence is not asnine. It's fact.

Hard evidence is not asinine. Unfortunately, that the prints in question constitute hard evidence of bigfoot's existence has yet to be established.
Reply
post #79 of 273
8/21/08 at 10:12am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
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.
Reply
post #80 of 273
8/21/08 at 10:40am

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
I didn't find any supporting "good points". Just that they had the castings and brought them out to promote discussions. Did I miss something?
Quote:
"There is a debate going on out there about truth and evidence in science," he says. "I thought Bigfoot would be a good way to have that conversation here."
In a gallery talk at the museum on Friday, Sherrilyn Roush, an associate professor of philosophy at Berkeley, took up the challenge. And true, perhaps, to the nature of philosophy, the results were thoughtful, provocative, and determinedly inconclusive.
Reply
post #81 of 273
8/21/08 at 12:22pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
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.
Scully Syndrome right there. Drives me nuts!

--
H
Reply
post #82 of 273
8/21/08 at 1:20pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by drobbins
I didn't find any supporting "good points". Just that they had the castings and brought them out to promote discussions. Did I miss something?


Yes, the rest of the article:





"Up to the early 19th century, the study of meteorites was considered marginal science," she said, explaining that trained scientists were loath to make the connection between meteors, which many had seen with their own eyes, and the rocks that civilians reported falling into their backyards from the heavens and insisted were meteorites.

"There was a long period in which scientists recognized the existence of one of these and not the other," she said. "And it may surprise you that the one they recognized was not the one we had physical evidence for."

As with Bigfoot, the scientific establishment "argued that meteorites were impossible," Roush said. And, as with meteorites, "it's certainly not impossible for a species that's a hominid in-between human beings and apes to be living in the Northwest Territories. That's not impossible at all."
Reply
post #83 of 273
8/21/08 at 1:25pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
As with Bigfoot, the scientific establishment "argued that meteorites were impossible," Roush said.

Please cite an example of the scientific establishment arguing that bigfoot is "impossible."
Reply
post #84 of 273
8/21/08 at 1:34pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Yes, the rest of the article:





"Up to the early 19th century, the study of meteorites was considered marginal science," she said, explaining that trained scientists were loath to make the connection between meteors, which many had seen with their own eyes, and the rocks that civilians reported falling into their backyards from the heavens and insisted were meteorites.

"There was a long period in which scientists recognized the existence of one of these and not the other," she said. "And it may surprise you that the one they recognized was not the one we had physical evidence for."

As with Bigfoot, the scientific establishment "argued that meteorites were impossible," Roush said. And, as with meteorites, "it's certainly not impossible for a species that's a hominid in-between human beings and apes to be living in the Northwest Territories. That's not impossible at all."

See, this is another problem with this Bigfoot stuff. Everything we currently understand as being science "FACT" is based on scientific study that is never absolute, true science is always challenging and testing. Early science in meteorites was non-conclusive. Current studies, due to carbon testing and other means not previously available, prove that meteorites recovered are in fact from space.

This has nothing to do with Bigfoot, since there has been NO PHYSICAL SAMPLES FROM A BIGFOOT THAT HAS BEEN STUDIED USING AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF A SERIES OF INDEPENDENT TRIALS. Foot print castings, no matter how real they may be in appearance, are circumstantial. Otherwise every person in the WORLD owning a pair of Chuck Tayler all-stars could be a murder suspect based on prints recovered at a crime scene. To say "BIGFOOT ABSOLUTELY EXISTS" based on recovered tracks and audio recordings is the equevalent to putting a 13 year old on death row for owning a pair of shoes based on my example.

So until such a proper sample of a bigfoot comes forward, and passes said trials, it's comfortable to put them in the "mythical beast" catagory based on every "proof" coming forward being discredited.
Reply
post #85 of 273
8/21/08 at 1:35pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.


True. I said before, I'm not trying to make people believe one way or the other. There is no gray area with Bigfoot. Either you believe or you don't. Of the books I have read about the subject, the documentaries I have watched, I do very much believe in Bigfoot. I don't appreciate the stigma attached to it very flattering. It's basically "If you believe, your dumb".
Many major discoveries were considered impossible before proven.
Reply
post #86 of 273
8/21/08 at 1:59pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
There is no gray area with Bigfoot. Either you believe or you don't.

This is a false dichotomy if ever I've heard one. Surely one can be skeptical of bigfoot claims, while still being open to well-documented, thoroughly-reviewed scientific evidence? That is, in fact, how I would describe myself. The reason I don't believe in bigfoot is not simply that I'm a skeptic or disbeliever, it's that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there exists an as-yet-unknown species of upright seven-foot ape. And no, one guy with a webpage is not sufficient, regardless of his qualifications. Let's see what other scientists and researchers think of his findings, and I'll be happy--eager, even--to reconsider my position.
Reply
post #87 of 273
8/21/08 at 2:09pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink
This is a false dichotomy if ever I've heard one. Surely one can be skeptical of bigfoot claims, while still being open to well-documented, thoroughly-reviewed scientific evidence? That is, in fact, how I would describe myself. The reason I don't believe in bigfoot is not simply that I'm a skeptic or disbeliever, it's that I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there exists an as-yet-unknown species of upright seven-foot ape. And no, one guy with a webpage is not sufficient, regardless of his qualifications. Let's see what other scientists and researchers think of his findings, and I'll be happy--eager, even--to reconsider my position.
Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real

Carl, when I said no gray area, I think that is an honest assumption.

When you ask someone if they believe in Bigfoot, 99% of the time they will give you a yes or no answer.

Thanks for participating in this debate.
Reply
post #88 of 273
8/21/08 at 2:29pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

nothing in that linked article other then the headline says Bigfoot is real though. all the "experts" say is "There is compelling evidence." which means no real facts. Here's the problem with the "experts"

Jimmy Chilcutt - Claims the cast prove it's real, currently on the Bigfoot speaking circut, appearing on radio shows and such... he's making money off it.

Jeff Meldrum - Has a book called SASQUATCH. which you can buy on the reasearch site owned by...

Matt Moneymaker - who runs that research site.

So, basically everyone in that artical has personal gain by being legitimized by National Geographic, just like the hoaxers who started all this.
Reply
post #89 of 273
8/21/08 at 2:42pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Carl, when I said no gray area, I think that is an honest assumption.

When you ask someone if they believe in Bigfoot, 99% of the time they will give you a yes or no answer.

I respectfully disagree.

Wouldn't you also get mostly "yes" and "no" answers when you ask someone whether they believe in abortion? The death penalty? Corporal punishment? God? Aliens?

Does that mean that those issues also have no gray area? No room for someone to be on the fence?
Reply
post #90 of 273
8/21/08 at 2:53pm

Re: Bigfoot found???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan^H
Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real

Carl, when I said no gray area, I think that is an honest assumption.

When you ask someone if they believe in Bigfoot, 99% of the time they will give you a yes or no answer.

Thanks for participating in this debate.
But there's a difference between "I'm a skeptical nonbeliever who's open to solid evidence" and "I don't believe, and nothing anyone shows me will ever convince me otherwise" (like what Holadem was complaining about with the X Files). Some people tend to lump the two together.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge