Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[ComfySlippers]

Not at all. And it's not limited to planes. Why can't we find missing people? Obviously our technology is limited as per the results. If our technology COULD find every missing person, I would agree it WOULD find Bigfoot as well. Until we reach the 100% recovery rate of those missing things we're looking for that we know to exist, it's a flawed argument. Chris B.

All I can say is... wow.
Talk about clutching at straws!

"why can't we find missing people?"
That'll keep the amusement levels up for a few days.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Not at all. And it's not limited to planes. Why can't we find missing people? Obviously our technology is limited as per the results. If our technology COULD find every missing person, I would agree it WOULD find Bigfoot as well. Until we reach the 100% recovery rate of those missing things we're looking for that we know to exist, it's a flawed argument. Chris B.

Umm, you're not paying attention. It's been pointed out to you that your babbling is an example of the Nirvana fallacy. In short "comparing actual things with idealized, unrealistic alternatives." A derivative of the false dilemma, which is also called "black and white thinking". Something you've been accused of promoting in the past.

It's not a mystery where you're picking up all this misguided courage to "take us on", the mystery is why. And I mean your reasons why, cause we're killing you. We know why, you're BLAARGing and this is your role. If you want you can say you've succeeded in 'standing your ground', but so what, you've not succeeded otherwise in making a single compelling argument for Bigfoot's existence. And you've made over 700 posts here. Did we maybe miss a few posts where you showed some actual proof? You know, instead of just more simpleminded "semantic proof by reduction of inescapable cosmic imperfection to irrelevance", e.g. not all missing people are found 100% of the time and thus Bigfoot.

Your "bobbin and weavin" here probably makes DWA a little envious (apparently he couldn't even make it through the JREF ISF sign up process), but your habit of always talking in absolutes would probably make Einstein envious.

 

[Resume]

<more crapsnip> Obviously our technology is limited . . .

The only technology necessary to establish footie would have been a spear or arrowhead. This would have occurred a long time ago. I'd advise you to not be silly but it's much too late for that.

 

[EHocking]

Not at all. And it's not limited to planes. Why can't we find missing people? Obviously our technology is limited as per the results. If our technology COULD find every missing person, I would agree it WOULD find Bigfoot as well. Until we reach the 100% recovery rate of those missing things we're looking for that we know to exist, it's a flawed argument. Chris B.

</unsubscribe>

You're just not trying any more.

 

[LTC8K6]

Not at all. And it's not limited to planes. Why can't we find missing people? Obviously our technology is limited as per the results. If our technology COULD find every missing person, I would agree it WOULD find Bigfoot as well. Until we reach the 100% recovery rate of those missing things we're looking for that we know to exist, it's a flawed argument. Chris B.

If the missing persons were interacting with the public on a regular basis, including in and near populated areas, like bigfoot supposedly does, then they wouldn't be missing.

 

[Correa Neto]

Missing persons = bigfoot...
Yeah... Let us see...
Hmm... How do you know a missing person case is real?
Simple. You must know the person is real. Driving license, bank accounts, bills, medical exams, the list goes on and on and on... So, even when a person disappears completely there are piles of evidence - of the good type- that the person was real.

How this compares to bigfoot?
It doesn't.
Its just yet another predictable attention-whoring move.

Expect "playing the victim" to come soon. Again.

 

[RayG]

Not at all. And it's not limited to planes. Why can't we find missing people? Obviously our technology is limited as per the results. If our technology COULD find every missing person, I would agree it WOULD find Bigfoot as well. Until we reach the 100% recovery rate of those missing things we're looking for that we know to exist, it's a flawed argument. Chris B.

I agree, your argument is flawed.

Regardless of the technology used, missing people are sometimes found. I'm guessing that missing people are found nearly every single day on this big old globe of ours. Your missing planes/people = bigfoot analogy fails again.

Chris, at what point are you going to accept that we won't believe your bigfoot excuses? Blurry photoblobs, indents in the ground, broken twigs, undecipherable noises, and unsubstantiated claims simply don't cut it with the skeptical crowd.

And I used to believe Chris, I really did. Once upon a time. Just like in a fairy tale.

RayG

 

[The Shrike]

"Well then, I've never known the bumble yet that could resist a pork dinner."

"oink, oink"

"Put some heart in it: that bumble's HUNGRY!!"


Perhaps Moneymaker's penchant for "call blasting" is yet another homage to him watching Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer as a kid.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I agree, your argument is flawed.

Regardless of the technology used, missing people are sometimes found. I'm guessing that missing people are found nearly every single day on this big old globe of ours. Your missing planes/people = bigfoot analogy fails again.

Chris, at what point are you going to accept that we won't believe your bigfoot excuses? Blurry photoblobs, indents in the ground, broken twigs, undecipherable noises, and unsubstantiated claims simply don't cut it with the skeptical crowd.

And I used to believe Chris, I really did. Once upon a time. Just like in a fairy tale.

RayG

Ray, I know I could never "convince" anyone here that Bigfoot is real with words, and I'm not trying to. All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault. Rather than going with "impossible" as the definitive, I suggest "unlikely" would be the better term when considering Bigfoot. Is that so bad? If you say "Bigfoot is impossible" then you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation. It's defined as being a scoftic for one to use a predetermined mindset on a subject. Is that critical thinking? No, it's not.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The only technology necessary to establish footie would have been a spear or arrowhead. This would have occurred a long time ago. I'd advise you to not be silly but it's much too late for that.

So what you're saying is there have never been any reports of conflict between Native Americans and Bigfoot? Wrong again. You're not even trying.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Probably not. Things that you choose to interpret as reports of conflict with bigfoot? I'm sure that there are. You enthusiasts love to put a bigfoot spin on just about everything.

Any evidence of conflict between Native Americans and bigfoot? Beyond anecdotal? No? Darn.

Try laying off the straw man for a bit Chris.

 

[The Shrike]

All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault.

What is the "fault"? If I say that fairies, unicorns, or mermaids are impossible is that skeptical to a fault or just plain skeptical?

. . . you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation.

And the "required investigation" would consist of what, photographing leafy shadows in rural Kentucky?

What required investigation do you suggest we do before declaring that fairies, unicorns, and mermaids are impossible? Or to take an even more tangible example oft-raised by William Parcher, that Tyrannosaurs are extinct?

 

[Resume]

So what you're saying is there have never been any reports of conflict between Native Americans and Bigfoot? Wrong again. You're not even trying.
Chris B.

Native American legends shoehorned to fit proponent need. A long time ago, I posted a link to the many NA legendary creatures and spirit animals; I believe you perused that link. How many of these creatures do you think First Nation peoples "had conflict" with? Would you give those creatures credence? And stop calling these things reports, they're just more campfire stories. All story, no bigfoot, ever. Anywhere.

ETA: If there were actual conflict between footie and Native Americans, well, we wouldn't be talking about bigfoot as a cryptid now, would we? He'd be up there in a Field Museum diorama, more famous by far than the Maneaters of Tsavo. Every silly anecdote you folks come up with as some sort of evidence for the existence of ole foo only makes him less likely.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ray, I know I could never "convince" anyone here that Bigfoot is real with words, and I'm not trying to. All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault. Rather than going with "impossible" as the definitive, I suggest "unlikely" would be the better term when considering Bigfoot. Is that so bad? If you say "Bigfoot is impossible" then you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation. It's defined as being a scoftic for one to use a predetermined mindset on a subject. Is that critical thinking? No, it's not.
Chris B.

Chris, I joined this board in November of 2002. That's over 14 years ago. Let's just use that time frame, even though the actual time of waiting is much longer.

Have I waited long enough for evidence at this point?
If not, how long should I wait before I can say that bigfoot does not exist?
I'm not getting any younger.

Do you think it is unreasonable for me to say that bigfoot does not exist?

 

[dmaker]

What is the "fault"? If I say that fairies, unicorns, or mermaids are impossible is that skeptical to a fault or just plain skeptical?


And the "required investigation" would consist of what, photographing leafy shadows in rural Kentucky?

What required investigation do you suggest we do before declaring that fairies, unicorns, and mermaids are impossible? Or to take an even more tangible example oft-raised by William Parcher, that Tyrannosaurs are extinct?

I love when bigfoot enthusiasts do their if only skeptics would go out in the woods canard. Do the required investigation is just another version of the same rally cry. But it's a smoke and mirrors tactic that opens a revolving door of circular logic.

When, in response, I point out that I am outdoors quite a bit. I live in Ontario. I hike, bike, cross country ski ( both track set and back country), camp and kayak. I am in wooded areas of Ontario ( Bruce County, Bruce Trail mostly) that can lay claim to several "official" bigfoot reports. This past September I spent a week in one of the squatchiest places on earth--Vancouver Island. I was camping on the northern part of the island on a rocky beach. A cougar was roaming 500 yrds from our site just days before we got there. We were warned by the wardens. I saw plenty of wild life--deer, eagles, dolphin, orcas, etc. Narry a footie seen, heard or even mentioned by anyone. Must have been a conspiracy.

But never mind my personal experiences alone.Add to them the thousands of professionals who spend countless hours in the same woods as bigfoot is reported to occupy. Why have none of them been able to provide any compelling bigfoot evidence? Some of these are even scientists in the course of their duties as scientists. They have produced clear photos of such rare things as the sole wolverine in a vast area. When all of this is pointed out in response to the shut in skeptic charge, the answer is invariably along the lines of well, bigfoot is elusive, you can't just expect to see one. The odds of seeing one are...blah..blah.

So, do the required investigation or not. Spend the time in the woods or not. It seems it will only register with footers if you are out there looking for bigfoot--and fail. Finding one is, oddly enough, not a measure of success.

 

[Resume]

I love when bigfoot enthusiasts do their if only skeptics would go out in the woods canard.

What's most irritating about this fallacy is that many skeptics reject the bigfoot hypothesis precisely because they've spent time in the outdoors, including alleged footie habitat. It's exactly that interest in experiencing the natural world that leads to properly investigating bigfoot claims, and ultimately rejecting those claims due to the overwhelming lack of evidence for anything bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

An excerpt from a German publication reprinted on the NAWAC site:

In a remote valley in the US researchers hunt for a phantom: Bigfoot. Is the mysterious ape creature merely legend, or is it reality? Researchers are looking for it – equipped with guns.

“It’s like a jungle here,” said biologist Alton Higgins. “Large areas are completely undeveloped. The vegetation is dense and the biodiversity is great.” The photos he shows back up his words. Green hills as far as the eye can see, a wild brook that winds through dense brush. The landscape is more reminiscent of Central Africa than the United States, but it is in the Ouachita Mountains, in the heart of North America.

Alton Higgins stands on the steep mountain where he and his colleagues have spent the last decade attempting to obtain definitive evidence of the wood ape as a novel or relic species. Photo: Chris Buntenbah.

Here, in this wild region in Oklahoma, a group of American researchers search for a phantom. An unknown ape, so they claim, lives in these forests. An animal, like the gorilla or chimpanzee, that walks on two legs like a man, is agile, extremely fast, and shy.

“We have now seen them dozens of times,” says Higgins. "Different animals. Juveniles and older. One we call Old Gray. The animal is about two meters tall, heavily muscled and covered with silver-gray hair.” Higgins himself saw Old Gray when the animal flitted across a clearing. Another researcher observed it crossing a river – in spite of its size and stature it was completely silent and graceful on the stones as it entered the undergrowth.

Notice the detail that Higgins uses to describe these wood apes. We've been advised here on a number of occasions that these folks are suffering from a misapprehension, a case of mistaken identity, or are victims of a hoax. Do the descriptions in the excerpt sound like any of these? Further, Higgins should realize this concentration of wood apes would certainly yield biological evidence, especially given the new DNA extraction techniques detailed in this thread and others. But no such luck, not in ten years operating in a ten acre scrap of land that a troop of Boy Scouts could reconnoiter in a weekend.

So I ask, does this sound like research, or a BLAARG?

 

[The Shrike]

So I ask, does this sound like research, or a BLAARG?

BLAARG City, USA.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Ray, I know I could never "convince" anyone here that Bigfoot is real with words, and I'm not trying to. All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault. Rather than going with "impossible" as the definitive, I suggest "unlikely" would be the better term when considering Bigfoot. Is that so bad? If you say "Bigfoot is impossible" then you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation. It's defined as being a scoftic for one to use a predetermined mindset on a subject. Is that critical thinking? No, it's not.
Chris B.

Absolute nonsense, lol. How much "investigation" does one really need to undertake before finally realizing that there's nothing there? You'd have more luck constantly searching for a missing sock in the same washing-machine you emptied an hour before.

 

[Aepervius]

Ray, I know I could never "convince" anyone here that Bigfoot is real with words, and I'm not trying to. All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault. Rather than going with "impossible" as the definitive, I suggest "unlikely" would be the better term when considering Bigfoot. Is that so bad? If you say "Bigfoot is impossible" then you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation. It's defined as being a scoftic for one to use a predetermined mindset on a subject. Is that critical thinking? No, it's not.
Chris B.

Usually most of us on these board are scientist or have a scientist background or acquaintance. So when we say impossible, what we mean is that vis a vis current scientific knowledge , it is so unlikely as to to have a probability of veracity so low as to be negligible and comparable to any other faery tale, and would be a significant science rewriting if found to be true. Think of counting the probability with big negative numbers in power of 10.

Since that's a mouthfull we summarize it by "impossible". "Improbable" would do, but with many (mostly lay) people it is unfortunately taken as to mean "in the realm of possible likelyhood" (as in : anything with a probability of 1 chance out of 1 million is ultimately a certainty. Bonus point to those who know which books i am speaking about). So impossible is better to really give the correct impression of the probability since improbable is so misused.

So yeah, bigfoot is as impossible as faery unicorn and fire breathing dragons (or acid, lightning etc breathing, let us not be racist against the chromatic, gems and metallic dragon - not even counting dracolich) and ad&d being real.

As for finding missing persons, you are confusing two utter4ly different situation which are far more harder. For one bf is supposed to live there and to reproduce there and have multiple individuals. That living there is different than a missing lsot person. If you can't see why, there is no helping.