Bigfoot Follies: part trois

Well, there's the weirdness of the Patterson film, but I'm not going anywhere near that one.
You mean the known, admitted hoax? The guy who wore the gorilla suit (Bob Heironimus) fessed up.

But, what do you know about the Native American Legends that are related to Bigfoot?
Only that most of them don't have the provenance that is usually claimed for them. Stories of the Florida Skunk Ape are said to go back centuries, but in fact date from no earlier than 1971.

The guy who thought the Patterson-Gimlin film looked like a guy wearing a gorilla suit, and was never able to conclusively demonstrate otherwise?

And of course, there's also the three friends I mentioned here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14232104#post14232104

Unfortunately, there's really nothing there to examine except my reaction to what they told me, but of course, there's always the option to not believe me, which I wouldn't blame you in the least.

Well, you know what they say about anecdotes...
 


Like I said, I'm not going there.


Only that most of them don't have the provenance that is usually claimed for them. Stories of the Florida Skunk Ape are said to go back centuries, but in fact date from no earlier than 1971.


Close, but no cigar. What I'm thinking of is...


The guy who thought the Patterson-Gimlin film looked like a guy wearing a gorilla suit, and was never able to conclusively demonstrate otherwise?


and his theory about Sasquatch.

-
 
Of all the legends I've opened my mind to over the years, Mr. Foot has been relegated to the "Cool Story, Bro" shelf along with the Loch Ness Monster, and Area 51. This is due to the same basic reasons already listed in this thread by others:

1. Commercial development of regions where Mr. Foot is supposed to roam. Logging/mining roads, and their respective operations. Expansion of vacation homes branching out from multiple small towns.

2. Cell phone cameras.

3. Trail cameras and other hunting technologies like tree-stands, stands, and hides becoming lighter, and thus easier to take deeper into the wild. Hunters are smart, and let's face it, Bigfoot in 4K is worth big money. That video hasn't happened.

4. Science getting more toys to remotely observe and record critters in the wild going about their business.

5. DNA sampling from water sources, and other places have turned up nothing.

6. Cheap-but-quality security cameras have become commonplace both for homes, and property surveillance.

7. Research into many of the classic Bigfoot legends yielded many facts left out of the pop-culture versions told on the internet today.

I grew up in Monterey County. I was an avid hiker. Big Sur, Little Sur, Garapata, The Pinnacles, Fort Ord, the Carmel Valley, Point Lobos, and locations in the Santa Cruz mountains hold many fantastic memories for me. I never saw anything on a hike that I'd call paranormal, and I've seen many wonderful, and amazing sights. Monterey County does not have a Bigfoot legend. We have tales of lost treasure, secret Native American gold-mines (even though our Native Americans ran around naked, built simple grass/stick structures, and had zero metallurgy skills), ghosts, and for a while in the 1930s we had a sea monster.
While I can't speak for Bigfoot, I can attest to how easy it is to vanish, and or remain unseen while in the woods. At least for a while. But while I've never seen a bear in the wild I have seen tracks. I've never seen a Mountain Lion, but I've followed their tracks, and their scat. Never seen a wild pig, but have passed through areas where they have rutted. I can also testify that your eyes can and will play tricks on you in the woods. Trees, branches, brush, deadfall, and grasses all conspire to give your peripheral vision a sideshow.

Bottom Line: If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you won't see one.
 
Last edited:
Of all the legends I've opened my mind to over the years, Mr. Foot has been relegated to the "Cool Story, Bro" shelf along with the Loch Ness Monster, and Area 51. This is due to the same basic reasons already listed in this thread by others:

1. Commercial development of regions where Mr. Foot is supposed to roam. Logging/mining roads, and their respective operations. Expansion of vacation homes branching out from multiple small towns.

2. Cell phone cameras.

3. Trail cameras and other hunting technologies like tree-stands, stands, and hides becoming lighter, and thus easier to take deeper into the wild. Hunters are smart, and let's face it, Bigfoot in 4K is worth big money. That video hasn't happened.

4. Science getting more toys to remotely observe and record critters in the wild going about their business.

5. DNA sampling from water sources, and other places have turned up nothing.

6. Cheap-but-quality security cameras have become commonplace both for homes, and property surveillance.

7. Research into many of the classic Bigfoot legends yielded many facts left out of the pop-culture versions told on the internet today...


(SNIP)


Some of the many reasons why I'm very, very skeptical that the Big Guy really exist and thank you Axxman

-
 
Last edited:
If that's true, you might want to update your site:

Originally Posted by AmyStrange:

Myself, I believe it's possible Sasquatch does exist


Even though Bigfoot might exist, I just don't think it's probable...

BTW (at the time), I had a partner who actually wrote the webpage* (I merely edited it), and she's the one you quoted above (and not me).

Good catch though and thank you for reading our page anyway.


*ETA: check out the copyright notice at the top of the webpage.

-
 
Last edited:
I'd be curious to know why Heironimus' anecdotal evidence (his confession) has more credibility than all the other anecdotal evidence about Bigfoot.
Because Heironimus's evidence has been corroborated by other sources. And because it has plausibility - more plausibility than the idea that a breeding population of large hominids has remained hidden for decades.
 
Because Heironimus's evidence has been corroborated by other sources. And because it has plausibility - more plausibility than the idea that a breeding population of large hominids has remained hidden for decades.


Sounds good, but it also sounds like confirmation bias to me.

-
 
Last edited:
The Patterson-Gimlin film is only one line of proposed evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. We cannot draw conclusions from it alone - we have to take into account all of the other failures to demonstrate Bigfoot's existence.


Agreed, but shouldn't we also be skeptical of anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs?

ETA: I think that's what Sanderson meant by the quote I provided earlier:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14231729#post14231729

-
 
Last edited:
Agreed, but shouldn't we also be skeptical of anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs?

ETA: I think that's what Sanderson meant by the quote I provided earlier:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14231729#post14231729
In this particular case there is no anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs, because the null hypothesis here has to be that no such creature exists. We don't - we can't - have positive evidence that it doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense. The default stance is that it does not exist until evidence shows that it does.

Also, take another look at what I already said about Sanderson's quote. We do not deny its existence in spite of evidence that it does, the way a climate denier does. We assume that it doesn't exist unless we have good evidence that it does. This is the rational, logical, skeptical approach.
 
In this particular case there is no anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs, because the null hypothesis here has to be that no such creature exists. We don't - we can't - have positive evidence that it doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense. The default stance is that it does not exist until evidence shows that it does.

Also, take another look at what I already said about Sanderson's quote. We do not deny its existence in spite of evidence that it does, the way a climate denier does. We assume that it doesn't exist unless we have good evidence that it does. This is the rational, logical, skeptical approach.


That's actually a good example of how to use a negative to prove a negative, but despite that, I will concede that you do have a point.

What exactly got you to this point anyway? Did you always believe Bigfoot didn't exist, or did you reluctantly come to that conclusion because of the lack of any substantial proof?

Just curious.

-
 
Last edited:
Even though Bigfoot might exist, I just don't think it's probable...

BTW (at the time), I had a partner who actually wrote the webpage* (I merely edited it), and she's the one you quoted above (and not me).

When you linked to the site, you said you had done some research. If it wasn't your research perhaps you should have said so.

*ETA: check out the copyright notice at the top of the webpage.

Why? Is quoting from the site a breach of copyright?
 

Back
Top Bottom