Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's also defined as pleading or arguing that ignores unfavorable features of a case. I'm not even getting into the fallacy, or pointing fingers, all I need say is if the shoe fits.
Chris B.

...which, surprisingly enough, does not address my question at all.

Be so kind as to provide an example, from this thread, of what you, personally, are calling "special pleading".

Ta ever so.
 
...which, surprisingly enough, does not address my question at all.

Be so kind as to provide an example, from this thread, of what you, personally, are calling "special pleading".

Ta ever so.

Not interested in providing examples for you. Simply ask yourself, have you ever ignored or dismissed features in the case for Bigfoot that were unfavorable to your position?
Chris B.
 
Yes, he has dismissed all of the non-evidence that Bigfooters use to support their case, because it doesn't count as evidence.

A giant floppy foot cast does not support the position that Bigfoot does or does not exist. It is a big giant ridiculous plaster cast of an imaginary foot.
 
Not interested in providing examples for you. Simply ask yourself, have you ever ignored or dismissed features in the case for Bigfoot that were unfavorable to your position?
Chris B.

Once again, you simply did not address my question at all. Interesting, innit?

There is, of course, a term for not being "interested" in casting aspersions, making innuendos, and hurling accusations, while not being "interested" in supporting them...
 
Yes, he has dismissed all of the non-evidence that Bigfooters use to support their case, because it doesn't count as evidence.

A giant floppy foot cast does not support the position that Bigfoot does or does not exist. It is a big giant ridiculous plaster cast of an imaginary foot.

I see, well therein is one of the problems. You can claim it is non-evidence and dismiss it but it's obviously evidence of something. Even if you believe ALL tracks, trackways and casts are faked, would you not have evidence to support a hoax in that case? To me, I think it would be worth some review and comparison with other similar findings. But that's me. Chris B.
 
Once again, you simply did not address my question at all. Interesting, innit?

There is, of course, a term for not being "interested" in casting aspersions, making innuendos, and hurling accusations, while not being "interested" in supporting them...

Yes once again I reminded you I am not interested in selecting specific examples for you. I'm sorry if that disappoints you but I'm not playing that one as I've already covered my point precisely to enable a self test, so again, if the shoe fits.
Chris B.
 
Not interested in providing examples for you. Simply ask yourself, have you ever ignored or dismissed features in the case for Bigfoot that were unfavorable to your position?
Chris B.

What can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
<snip> You can claim it is non-evidence and dismiss it but it's obviously evidence of something. <snip>
Indeed - even if it is evidence of hoaxing.

Amongst all this discussion, over all the years, I wonder why these these guys have never been interested. They follow scientific expeditions all over the world where there might be good footage.
 
Did you ever think to ask the question: What if the Bigfoot population is not residential and instead nomadic? Ding ding ding........
Chris B.
So, bigfoot doesn't leave clues in one place because he's nomadic.

Undoubtedly there will be a few folks that leave the main trails and highways to do some bird watching. My point was and is, most commonly they don't.
But to find bigfoot, you have to go off the roads and paths that a nomadic tribe of hominids would use.

So there's just the one specific hillside where the bigfoots hang out to do their primatey things? Don't you think their home range would be large enough to include the "halfway" point along the trail?

So it's popular for people to visit the approximate location of your bigfooty adventures at night and with sophisticated recording equipment?

Wouldn't a large animal be easier to track in the winter? From your comments, Chris, it seems like you do not go out in the winter. If so, is there a reason for that?

Chris, again, you are trying to Rredefine "special pleading" here.

We say "where's his house" and you reply "he's nomadic"
We say "why aren't there traces or sightings of him on migratory paths" and you say "you have to get off the paths to find him."
Hello?
 
--snip--
We say "where's his house" and you reply "he's nomadic"
We say "why aren't there traces or sightings of him on migratory paths" and you say "you have to get off the paths to find him."
Hello?
Indeed. Even small game in small numbers leave game trails, and even Chris has said that his home is on an "established" bigfoot migratory path. That means he knows the trail. That means there is evidence. That means he can produce the evidence.

Except he can't. We know why.
 
Yes once again I reminded you I am not interested in selecting specific examples for you. I'm sorry if that disappoints you but I'm not playing that one as I've already covered my point precisely to enable a self test, so again, if the shoe fits.
Chris B.

Demonstrating, as if a demonstration were needed, that you do not, in fact, understand the accusations you have made.

Fortunately for reality, the concept of special pleading is not dependent upon your understanding. However, you really ought to be more careful with your accusations and innuendoes. SInce you cannot even begin to demonstrate where, in fact, peccavi! (which would constitute evidence to support your insinuation), this claim of yours, as others, fails for lack of evidence. Feel free to explain how this situation is "different", and why that means different standards adhere.
 
Excuse me but I was not able to see the map Shrike presented on the site. Of course one can use their info to generate a report map, but that map is not there prior to generating it.
Seriously, this again? I already told you it was a sophisticated query you have no experience with, so OF COURSE you didn't see it.

And yes, the map Shrike posted has 3 counties on it. Since you seem to be lacking of this knowledge, let me enlighten you.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Since you have a problem with candor, let me lay it out for everyone else so they know what you did. That picture The Shrike generated through "sophisticated website queries you have no clue about" actually does have parts of 3 counties on it. But as always, the devil's in the dosage. In essence you only gave the gist of it instead of the truth. The large majority of that picture he presented has ONLY ONE county on it with just the edges and extremities of the other counties shown. To be even clearer, out of the total number of bird list "bubbles" shown - 56 total - 47 of them are in fact in Edmonson county. Only 9 are in those other two counties combined. So "technically" you may be right and that's about it. In terms of having an honest discussion here (which you've yet to do) YOU GET AN F.

See how NOT BEING HONEST only embarrasses you?
 
Last edited:
I see, so you generated that map of 3 counties and it was in fact not on the site for me to find.
If you were not ignorant of eBird you would have known how to generate such maps on your own, and understand the data that go into them. You don't.

I queried the database for checklists of Edmonson Co, KY. There were 449. Today there are 450. While you typing away on your computer trying to find new ways to be obtuse, someone else was in your study area not finding bigfoot.

The map I provided was a specific query into the locations of some of those checklists, namely those that included Carolina Chickadee. The fact that my screencap of that map overlapped neighboring counties is irrelevant. I asked for just Edmonson County but it spat out all locations for checklists included Carolina Chickadee and I screencapped a window that would include those locations. So? The point was simply to illustrate the wide distribution of points.

I found the locations to be if anything even more highway location related than I had given credit for previously. So my understanding of where birders go would seem to be precise.
Then you're doing it wrong or you're being highly disingenuous about what you think you've seen. There are checklist locations on roads and trails and off roads and trails. So?

More to the point, consider the checklists entered for the hotspot at the main parking lot for Mammoth Cave National Park. Yesterday, a guy named Steve Kistler (friend of yours perhaps?) and 6 comrades birded a portion of the National Park from about 8:15–10:15 am. The location for their 2-hour jaunt is recorded as the parking lot. They must be pretty good birders (or that's a very exciting parking lot) because they reported 21 species.

A deeper dive reveals that they actually report traveling 1.5 miles in those 2 hours. Ah, now it makes sense. They must've taken a walk along a local trail but reported the location as the main location for the National Park. We do stuff like that all the time.

Check out my attached map from Douthat State Park in Virginia, a bit north of Clifton Forge. The blue line illustrates a likely route I would follow were I birding that lovely place today. There is no way I would not explore Blue Suck Hollow. But I would also write down what I found in the parking lot and I'd take a few minutes to scan the lake. When I later entered these data into eBird, I'm asked to pinpoint a location like the one I annotated on the attached map. In general it shows where I was, but it doesn't really, does it?

I never claimed to be able to see more than these folks, I claimed to be looking at different areas and different things.
I'm not saying you're ignorant of the wildlife in the area (though you are), I'm saying you're ignorant of the efforts of people in that area pursuing wildlife (and other things).

I've never claimed to have superhuman powers for noticing things as I'm obviously human. . . . Some of the simplest places to start is to stop dismissing a glimpse of movement or a stick break or an odd shape as nothing and moving along.
So your claim to noticing-stuff fame is that you were able to divine a 400kg giant from 3m away. Do you realize that we birders pick out 20g sprites from 50m away? (I'm good to about 400m if they're singing.)
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2015-03-26 at 12.00.24 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2015-03-26 at 12.00.24 PM.jpg
    49.7 KB · Views: 3
The Shrike said:
So your claim to noticing-stuff fame is that you were able to divine a 400kg giant from 3m away. Do you realize that we birders pick out 20g sprites from 50m away? (I'm good to about 400m if they're singing.)
[BLAARG mode]
Ah, but you are not looking for bigfoots! I am.
You are not researching bigfoots! I am.
You have not seen them. I have.
[/BLAARG mode]
 
On Inaturalist.org sight, many of the sightings are down to within 6 feet of the location.
It utilizes the GPS on the Iphone to automatically put the location of the sighting.

http://www.inaturalist.org/observations/874540

If you search Edmonson County KY, and click on the Observations tab, you can scroll through the animals. Some of them are obscured because they are protected species, some have manual coordinates punched in, you can drag the pin on the map to where you saw it, but many of those, are, as The Shrike pointed out, placed at a parking lot, or the entrance to Mammoth Cave out of expediency.
 
Chris states again that in this thread he is not interested in proving Bigfoot is real. Odd that I have such a different sense from his posts. Perhaps he means that he doesn't think that he could prove that Bigfoot is real to most of the other posters here. That I believe (and it is not because the other posters have a closed mind, as he has claimed). But I would be happy to see convincing evidence- shake my world!

Chris also has stated that he is not interested in providing examples of the special pleading of which he has accused others. That I believe.
 
Last edited:
Chris states again that in this thread he is not interested in proving Bigfoot is real. Odd that I have such a strong sense of otherwise.
I believe him. His behavior is as much that of someone here for winding us up as it is a true believer.


Giordano said:
Chris also has stated that he is not interested in providing examples of the special pleading of which he has accused others. That I believe.
I, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom