Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[The Shrike]

But the claim of finding that particular plane is what's extraordinary and that makes it as suspect as a Bigfoot claim in my view.

Your view is warped. We know that that particular plane existed and, having found some of its wreckage a week after it went down, we know that it crashed. The story making the rounds this week is that the remainder of that plane has been found and, evidently, there's enough of the fuselage intact that confirmation should be forthcoming rather easily.

Here's how to put the finding on the same level of extraordinary as a bigfoot claim. We'd need to:

1) know bigfoots exist, with a comparable number of bigfoot specimens as there are planes. (About 13,000 Douglas DC-3s were built, for a bit of perspective.)

2) know that a bigfoot died at some approximate location in 1961

3) have found its bottom half in 1961

4) have provisionally found its top half in 2015.

Do 1–4 sound ridiculous to you? If so, good! That's your brain working.

When I finish my study and submit my findings to the press, there will be undeniable evidence of Bigfoot presented yes.
Chris B.

Oh goodie! Undeniable evidence of bigfoot is forthcoming? It's probably been 4 or 5 weeks since I've heard someone make that claim. This time though it'll have to be true!

 

[Correa Neto]

Soon!

Like Nograd' soon or Christian's soon?

 

[Resume]

I see. So you also subscribe to the philosophy the bar for evidence can be lowered or raised depending on your own beliefs and knowledge. I disagree of course.

My beliefs are informed by knowledge and evidence. Since there is evidence that a plane crashed in that vicinity, some of it recovered, I am willing to extend provisional acceptance of a claim that more of the plane has been discovered. I am not willing to accept a claim of a nine-foot ape wandering around North America without supporting evidence; this supporting evidence would be a footie, or a piece of one, like the piece(s) of the crashed aircraft recovered. There is none of that for ole foo.

I do see what you mean though. Airplanes exist of course and plane crash sites also exist. But the claim of finding that particular plane is what's extraordinary and that makes it as suspect as a Bigfoot claim in my view.

The difference has been explained above, and by other posters. You just don't like it, which is fine. But the difference exists regardless.

When I finish my study and submit my findings to the press, there will be undeniable evidence of Bigfoot presented yes.
Chris B.

You're a doozie if you do. (All apologies to Doc Holiday.)

 

[Resume]

Soon!

Like Nograd' soon or Christian's soon?

As Luke would have us know, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things footie be fulfilled."

 

[carlitos]

Some of the Bigfoot stories have clear pics as well.

Clear pics of what?

pointless

Yeah.

 

[Macgyver1968]

What I don't understand is why you can't just release the video right now? You say you need to complete you study...but it's not like you can't continue to study it after it's release...plus you would put it the hands of 1000s of scientists that could confirm your findings...plus you'd get a huge payday to fund your continued research.

So please explain to me in detail what prevents you from releasing the video today?

We've seen this before...it's nothing new. Someone claims to have game-changing evidence of Bigfoot, but always has an excuse of why they can't release it....and they never do...because it's all Bravo Sierra.

 

[Giordano]

There's a little more to their claim than simply finding a plane crash site. It's a particular plane crash of the Chilean Soccer team. That is extraordinary. Possibly it is their plane, but there hasn't been any follow up to verify anything yet.

I agree with you partly though, planes are on record to exist and Bigfoot is not. I do understand your point of view about lowering the bar for things you already know to exist but, I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same. To deviate from this is inviting trouble. Chris B.

I agree with you that the burden of proof should be the same for any claim. But the pre-existing facts that can help fulfill this burden can differ for different claims, with some requiring fewer additional facts to achieve proof. We already know that there are planes, that this one went down, that it went down in an area consistent with the claimed find, that there is already some physical evidence that the find is the plane claimed. Thus the number if additional facts to complete the proof is modest to moderate in number. Vs bigfoot, where we have no pre-existing evidence. So we would need much more additional ("more extraordinary") evidence of Bigfoot to reach the same level of total evidence (pre-existing plus newly found) as the plane. One needs a few more facts, the other claim needs to start from zero and therefore needs to ucover a lot more new evidence.

 

[abaddon]

I see. So you also subscribe to the philosophy the bar for evidence can be lowered or raised depending on your own beliefs and knowledge. I disagree of course.

I do see what you mean though. Airplanes exist of course and plane crash sites also exist. But the claim of finding that particular plane is what's extraordinary and that makes it as suspect as a Bigfoot claim in my view.

When I finish my study and submit my findings to the press, there will be undeniable evidence of Bigfoot presented yes.
Chris B.

You agree airplanes exist and that crashes occur, so what else could this wreckage be? There are a limited number of possibilities...

CP-1418 Bolivian internal flight, so eliminated
HK-1707X Columbian internal cargo flight, so eliminated
TAM-52 Bolivian internal flight, so eliminated
LV-JYR Debris found in Argentina, so eliminated
HK-527 Reported down some 150km south at Cerro el Planchon, but the prop found and photographed was a DC-3 prop not a C-46 prop, so eliminated

So given the tail and some human remains were found in the region in 1961, does it not seem likely to you that this is the rest of Lan-Chile 210?

 

[Biscuit]

The evidence provided in the plane crash story is no more than you'll read in any typical Bigfoot story. Some of the Bigfoot stories have clear pics as well. The recent "swamp ape taking a bath" fiasco is one. So no, I think the bar should be the same. If one can be accepted based on pics and a narrative, so could the other. Accepting neither based on preliminary evidence is still the best policy. Chris B.

Because you have a personal bias towards the existence of bigfoot, a bias not shared by science. A bias not backed up by any evidence. A bias based only on your opinion.

Now if the claim was that an alien space craft was found crashed into a mountain side I would agree with you as, like bigfoot, there would be no supporting evidence for the claim. Can you see the difference?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

What I don't understand is why you can't just release the video right now? You say you need to complete you study...but it's not like you can't continue to study it after it's release...plus you would put it the hands of 1000s of scientists that could confirm your findings...plus you'd get a huge payday to fund your continued research.

So please explain to me in detail what prevents you from releasing the video today?

We've seen this before...it's nothing new. Someone claims to have game-changing evidence of Bigfoot, but always has an excuse of why they can't release it....and they never do...because it's all Bravo Sierra.

Stop! You're making too much sense...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What I don't understand is why you can't just release the video right now? You say you need to complete you study...but it's not like you can't continue to study it after it's release...plus you would put it the hands of 1000s of scientists that could confirm your findings...plus you'd get a huge payday to fund your continued research.

So please explain to me in detail what prevents you from releasing the video today?

We've seen this before...it's nothing new. Someone claims to have game-changing evidence of Bigfoot, but always has an excuse of why they can't release it....and they never do...because it's all Bravo Sierra.

I do not claim and have never claimed to have evidence in my possession that will prove Bigfoot's existence to the World.

When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that. My position on Bigfoot comes from having encounters with the creatures. It doesn't come from one piece of evidence in particular that I do not share with everyone else. Everything I have will also be shared when the time comes.
Chris B.

 

[Biscuit]

I do not claim and have never claimed to have evidence in my possession that will prove Bigfoot's existence to the World.

When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that. My position on Bigfoot comes from having encounters with the creatures. It doesn't come from one piece of evidence in particular that I do not share with everyone else. Everything I have will also be shared when the time comes.Chris B.

Well be sure to give us a heads up so satan can sharpen his ice skates.

 

[tsig]

When I present my story about Bigfoot to the media. There will be evidence to prove what I am saying is correct and true.



Obviously, Biscuit and myself were discussing the presentation of evidence and not the position of who is responsible.

I enjoy input from other members as well but I do ask that potential contributors use some context application when reviewing the conversation for comment. Or is that too much to ask?



Was there something you need me to address in particular?



I see. So you also subscribe to the philosophy the bar for evidence can be lowered or raised depending on your own beliefs and knowledge. I disagree of course.

I do see what you mean though. Airplanes exist of course and plane crash sites also exist. But the claim of finding that particular plane is what's extraordinary and that makes it as suspect as a Bigfoot claim in my view.

When I finish my study and submit my findings to the press, there will be undeniable evidence of Bigfoot presented yes.Chris B.

I do not claim and have never claimed to have evidence in my possession that will prove Bigfoot's existence to the World. When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that. My position on Bigfoot comes from having encounters with the creatures. It doesn't come from one piece of evidence in particular that I do not share with everyone else. Everything I have will also be shared when the time comes.
Chris B.

The hilited are in contradiction.

 

[BayWatcher]

Chris has previously stated that he'll release his "study" when he has a body to go with it. In other words, he's not gonna release anything.

 

[Giordano]

I do not claim and have never claimed to have evidence in my possession that will prove Bigfoot's existence to the World.

When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that. My position on Bigfoot comes from having encounters with the creatures. It doesn't come from one piece of evidence in particular that I do not share with everyone else. Everything I have will also be shared when the time comes.
Chris B.

I honestly look forward to this convincing evidence, once you obtain it and share it. I truly would be very excited by a strong proof of Bigfoot and not disappointed in any way. Good luck! Meanwhile...

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The hilited are in contradiction.

No, they are not. Chris B.

 

[The Shrike]

When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that.

I don't know about what you might be dangling Chris, but you do operate a website with photographs of shadows that you claim to be bigfoots.

As to what you're looking for, are you a pro-kill guy now or is it DNA you're after? If the latter, it shouldn't be too difficult to find some biggie foo-foo poop, seeing as you know their migration corridor and all.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I agree with you that the burden of proof should be the same for any claim. But the pre-existing facts that fulfill this burden can differ for different claims, with some requiring fewer additional facts to achieve proof. We already know that there are planes, that this one went down, that it went down in an area consistent with the claimed find, that there is already some physical evidence that the find is the plane claimed. Thus the number if additional facts to complete the proof is moderate in number.. Vs bigfoot, where we have no pre-existing evidence. So we would need more additional ("more extraordinary") evidence to reach the same level of confirmation as the plane. One needs a few more facts, the other claim needs to start from zero and therefore discover a lot more evidence.

All claims should be treated exactly the same. The definition of "extraordinary" would be a matter of opinion, the facts are all that really matter. I would investigate the plane story just as closely as a Bigfoot story and let the facts decide what is true or not.

You agree airplanes exist and that crashes occur, so what else could this wreckage be? There are a limited number of possibilities...

CP-1418 Bolivian internal flight, so eliminated
HK-1707X Columbian internal cargo flight, so eliminated
TAM-52 Bolivian internal flight, so eliminated
LV-JYR Debris found in Argentina, so eliminated
HK-527 Reported down some 150km south at Cerro el Planchon, but the prop found and photographed was a DC-3 prop not a C-46 prop, so eliminated

So given the tail and some human remains were found in the region in 1961, does it not seem likely to you that this is the rest of Lan-Chile 210?

It's possible. But let's not forget DC-3's were commonly used by in drug trade as well.

Because you have a personal bias towards the existence of bigfoot, a bias not shared by science. A bias not backed up by any evidence. A bias based only on your opinion.

Now if the claim was that an alien space craft was found crashed into a mountain side I would agree with you as, like bigfoot, there would be no supporting evidence for the claim. Can you see the difference?

Some argue that the plane crash story may be reasonable to assume. And I agree it is a far more reasonable premise than a story about an undiscovered primate or a story about a UFO. Though even if something appears to be reasonable it may not be true and that's the dilemma and the problem with reasonable premise and assumptions.

Well be sure to give us a heads up so satan can sharpen his ice skates.

Now that's funny.

Your view is warped. We know that that particular plane existed and, having found some of its wreckage a week after it went down, we know that it crashed. The story making the rounds this week is that the remainder of that plane has been found and, evidently, there's enough of the fuselage intact that confirmation should be forthcoming rather easily.

Here's how to put the finding on the same level of extraordinary as a bigfoot claim. We'd need to:

1) know bigfoots exist, with a comparable number of bigfoot specimens as there are planes. (About 13,000 Douglas DC-3s were built, for a bit of perspective.)

2) know that a bigfoot died at some approximate location in 1961

3) have found its bottom half in 1961

4) have provisionally found its top half in 2015.

Do 1–4 sound ridiculous to you? If so, good! That's your brain working.



Oh goodie! Undeniable evidence of bigfoot is forthcoming? It's probably been 4 or 5 weeks since I've heard someone make that claim. This time though it'll have to be true!

I'm not sure why you think my view is "warped" when it compares closely to your own. Above you agree the finding of the downed Soccer plane is provisional.

Your logic is an attempt to explain reasonable premise based on bias. I'm not allowed the luxury of "reasonable premise". Just the facts. Chris B.

 

[William Parcher]

Debate on this forum really gives you something to look forward to every day, Chris.

 

[dmaker]

I do not claim and have never claimed to have evidence in my possession that will prove Bigfoot's existence to the World.

When I get what I'm looking for, it will be released ASAP. Please don't try and paint me as someone dangling evidence, I'm not doing that. My position on Bigfoot comes from having encounters with the creatures. It doesn't come from one piece of evidence in particular that I do not share with everyone else. Everything I have will also be shared when the time comes.
Chris B.

Can we see your HD video that you shot 15 ft from the subject please? You claim to have this, but will not share it. Perhaps you have a different definition of dangle?