Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[carcharodon]

By the way, I am still waiting for an answer to my question. Which scientists and biologists of the calibre of Goodall, Schaller, Swindler, Sykes, Meldrum, Bindernagel, Chilcutt etc etc give goblins, elves and werewolves a fair crack of the whip?

Can anybody direct me to them?

 

[carcharodon]

And as other posters have pointed out, some evidence hasn't been established as hoaxed, even though attempts to do so haven't borne fruit.

Correct Huntster. Some evidence hasn't been established as a hoax. In fact, quite the contrary. Because some purported evidence has been established as a hoax, does not mean that all of it has. If just one piece of evidence is authentic, well............................................................!!!

 

[carcharodon]

There isn't even a set description of bigfoot in the first place.

Yes there is. Primate, covered in hair, bipedal, of large stature and build.

You have a problem with this set discription?

 

[carcharodon]

There's nothing extraordinary about the vast majority of physical descriptions of bigfoot when looked at in light of animals we already know to have existed. Zero..... : other than the fact that we thought that animals very similar (if not in fact a known species), were extinct.

Soarwing, some people here are equating sasquatch/yeti to goblins, elves and werewolves. Thankfully, there are some other skeptics here who are not being so ridiculous.

 

[LAL]

Can you say " obtuse " ?

Took you long enough.

You bore me, Greg. Bye for now.

 

[LAL]

Negative, Ghostrider....

What about Gigantopithecus blacki?

It was certainly a match for size. There is no reason it, or a relative couldn't have crossed the Bering Land Bridge as so many other Pleistocene mammals did.

The Laetoli trackway indicates Australopithecus afarensis (or possibly anamensis) had flat, flexible feet and a similar way of going.

 

[Correa Neto]

Outstanding!

Do you have any qualified people in mind?

Do you have a source of funding?

Huntster, the qualified persons and the sources of funding would not be a problem IF the data were as good as "bigfeet-are-real" proponents say. Quite clear eh?

In other words, if few people care about bigfeet, blame it on the pretty bad data quality, on the pretty bad handling it receives, on the hoaxers and on the moneymakers. These are the real culprits, and not some alleged prejudice from "mainstream science".

That is all correct, but I suggest that any effort to acquire photographs would be rather foolish, as it would only fuel more division, and resolve nothing.

Care to expand why high-quality footage/stills not under suspect of being frauds would "only fuel further discussion"?

I say if something like this ever shows up, many changes in opinion will happen. Count me on this group. There will be detailed examination? Of course, specially when it comes to mind the "hazy" nature of many photographic pieces of evidence.

But if its good, if the source is reliable, then eyebrows will be raised and we'll see some pretty heavy action.

However, I don't think it will ever happen, for the reasons I have already stated. But, who knows, I may be wrong.

And so?

See the start of this post. Some posters here (I'm among them) have already exposed their opinion on what course of action those who want the subject to be taken more seriously should take.

However, given the content of many statements I read, many people just can't do it, for a number of reasons.

Sorta' like the issue overall: "Ain't proven, but ain't impossible either."

No, you made a very poor analogy. Like:
"You can't prove I can't fly like Superman, but its not impossible for me to fly like Superman". You don't know me. Maybe I am from Krypton. Everything is possible.

Of course its impossible. OK, it also depends on your definition of "flight" and on flight's "aftermath". But you have no real evidence that I can't fly like superman. But we all know that -unfortunately- I can't. See the weakness of the "everything is possible" line? There are limits to what's possible.

In the case in question (bigfoot), what limits the "possible" field is the reliability of data, that is far from providing a good backing for the claim.

They're not predictable with precision since we lack conclusive data, and they are also clearly very rare.

Hunster, if the data is considered good enough to draw conclusions on species range and behavior, it should also be good for other purposes... If not, all the conclusions obtained from it are worthless.

In other words, the guide provides the camp, logistics, remote transportation, etc., and the "experts" use their own knowledge or data to conduct the actual hunt.

A bit of an oversimplification here, but the basic outline is roughly presented.
Hardware would of course have to be defined after discussions with the guide(s), as well as routes, etc. Been there (OK, not in Alaska), done that. Local people have information that is really precious.

The guide(s) should help on the "hunt" (heck, maybe they have one or two tips on where the critters are). Its a group work.

That sounds good, except you haven't ascertained where the $2,000 per day for that logistical support will come from (not to mention the other expenses that will occur).

Would be a piece of cake if the evidence is as good as some claim.
Exactly what I am trying to explain.
Bad evidence = no interest and no funding.

That may be correct. It may have only been your contemporaries on this forum who have claimed that there is "no evidence."

The above has some relevance to the topic? Fell free to show me, for I can't see. If not, what about leaving this aside?

That may be true, or it may be true that the data is just incomplete, or the low density of the animal makes such data nearly worthless.

In both cases, specially on the second, any conclusions draw from it would become inexact and unrealiable.

Regardless of which side of the coin one is beholding, this is true:

It has not been established as fantasy or reality, thus any attempt to quantify it as either is false.

Yes. That's why to say one is 95% sure of anything in this case is BS, unless you are using it as an allegory, analogy, parable, rethoric figure, etc. One can only qualify, and not quantify. Use "quite likely", "unlikely", etc.

But check also the "everything is possible" item above.

"Might be"?

The PG film "might be" a hoax?

Why, yes. It "might be."

It also "might be" a genuine film of an uncatalogued animal, also.

And those are the only two options with regard to that piece of evidence, unless you are willing to propose that it is a black bear, an extraterrestrial alien, a robot, or a giraffe.

Carefull not to enter in to some variant of the "everything is possible" line and commit some fallacy. For example...

Prove its not an alien or a robot! Or a robotic alien!
You can't.

You can say its highly unlikely it was an alien. But you can't prove it wasn't. And you know some people think it was an alien...

But you can say something else. I say, for example:

It is under suspicious of being a fraud.
If something smells bad with a data piece, to the garbage can it goes.

I think it most likely is a hoax (a very good one, I must say).

We switched rather freely and quickly from your "corpse" discussion to "zoos".

I'm afraid not.
This particular aspect of the discussion is related to bigfoot specimens. You made an analogy and said you never found dead specimens of wolverines and polar bears. Then I told you where you could find some specimens (live and dead) of wolverines and polar bears. What means it not impossible to obtain specimens from real animals.

 

[Huntster]

....Because some purported evidence has been established as a hoax, does not mean that all of it has. If just one piece of evidence is authentic, well............................................................!!!

And thus the reason why a denialist must attack those elements of evidence which cannot be established as false, or dismissed as mere testimony.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And thus the reason why a denialist must attack those elements of evidence which cannot be established as false, or dismissed as mere testimony.

No we musn't , any more than it is our responsibility to disprove any outlandish claim.

We do not have the responsibility to show that any evidence is false, until you show what it is evidence of..

But you know how that works... You do, don't you ?


( Yes, I'll wear your ' Denialist ' label .. Whatever makes you feel better . )

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Outstanding!

Do you have any qualified people in mind?

Do you have a source of funding?

Huntster, the qualified persons and the sources of funding would not be a problem IF the data were as good as "bigfeet-are-real" proponents say. Quite clear eh?

Not fully.

I again state that there is no proof of the existence of sasquatch, but there is lots of testimony and some photographic and forensic evidence.

It should be enough for a comprehensive study to put the issue to rest one way or the other.

That comprehensive study has yet to occur.

In other words, if few people care about bigfeet, blame it on the pretty bad data quality, on the pretty bad handling it receives, on the hoaxers and on the moneymakers. These are the real culprits, and not some alleged prejudice from "mainstream science".

I say you are correct regarding evidence quality, poor handling, hoaxers, and snake oil salesmen, but that "mainstream science" is also playing an irresponsible role, and are not "to blame" for the above mentioned problems.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is all correct, but I suggest that any effort to acquire photographs would be rather foolish, as it would only fuel more division, and resolve nothing.

Care to expand why high-quality footage/stills not under suspect of being frauds would "only fuel further discussion"?

Any and all photographs would be under suspect of being frauds. This forum literally proves that.

I say if something like this ever shows up, many changes in opinion will happen. Count me on this group.

Forgive my utter skepticism regarding that claim.

But if its good, if the source is reliable, then eyebrows will be raised and we'll see some pretty heavy action.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I've seen it too many times.

Nobody bothers with the money tree until it begins to blossom..........

Originally Posted by Huntster
And so?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorta' like the issue overall: "Ain't proven, but ain't impossible either."

No, you made a very poor analogy. Like:
"You can't prove I can't fly like Superman, but its not impossible for me to fly like Superman". You don't know me. Maybe I am from Krypton. Everything is possible.

I'm confident enough to state that neither you or I can't fly like "Superman", and that you are not from "Krypton."

And that whole degenerated parable has very little to do with the possibility of an uncatalogued primate.

Of course its impossible. OK, it also depends on your definition of "flight" and on flight's "aftermath". But you have no real evidence that I can't fly like superman.

I don't need any. You can claim your ability to fly like Superman all day long, and I will reject it out of hand, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

But we all know that -unfortunately- I can't. See the weakness of the "everything is possible" line?

Thanks to your example?.....................No.

In the case in question (bigfoot), what limits the "possible" field is the reliability of data, that is far from providing a good backing for the claim.

There is enough evidence to justify an official investigation, and considering what has been spent on "snail darters" in the past, it is perfectly justifiable morally.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They're not predictable with precision since we lack conclusive data, and they are also clearly very rare.

Hunster, if the data is considered good enough to draw conclusions on species range and behavior, it should also be good for other purposes... If not, all the conclusions obtained from it are worthless.

The data is good "for other purposes", like "they walk on two legs", and "they're furry", etc.

But good enough to declare that there will be a sasquatch standing at 61N 149W at 6:17 AM on the morning of April 27, 2007, waiting for someone to come take his photo?

Originally Posted by Huntster
In other words, the guide provides the camp, logistics, remote transportation, etc., and the "experts" use their own knowledge or data to conduct the actual hunt.

A bit of an oversimplification here, but the basic outline is roughly presented.
Hardware would of course have to be defined after discussions with the guide(s), as well as routes, etc. Been there (OK, not in Alaska), done that. Local people have information that is really precious.

The guide(s) should help on the "hunt" (heck, maybe they have one or two tips on where the critters are). Its a group work.

I agree 100%.

I suggest a team comprised of Drs. Meldrum, Farenbach, and Mioncynski along with the official state wildlife area biologist and habitat biologist and their assistants, a local highly reputable guide/outfitter, and with at least one kennel of trained bear dogs with their handler(s) available at short notice. The state/province selected should be northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, or Southeast Alaska, with coastal BC and SE Alaska high on the list of consideration. The area of operations would be best defined by recent, good quality reports. Organization can occur at any time, but actual operations suspended until decent reports are submitted to an organization like BFRO, so that money isn't spent prematurely.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That sounds good, except you haven't ascertained where the $2,000 per day for that logistical support will come from (not to mention the other expenses that will occur).

Would be a piece of cake if the evidence is as good as some claim.
Exactly what I am trying to explain.
Bad evidence = no interest and no funding.

That certainly wasn't the case with the snail darter. Not only were many, many millions spent and a large dam/electricity project killed, later the evidence showed that the snail darter wasn't endangered at all, and could be found in other locations.

It's a matter if interest and focus, and if one considers the possibility that these creatures exist, and that they are clearly rare (if not endangered, at least in some areas), it is the responsibility of state/federal wildlife management agencies to determine if these creatures exist.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That may be correct. It may have only been your contemporaries on this forum who have claimed that there is "no evidence."

The above has some relevance to the topic? Fell free to show me, for I can't see. If not, what about leaving this aside?

This is the second time you've refused to entertain this consideration.

Embarrassed by the likes of Mad Horn?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Regardless of which side of the coin one is beholding, this is true:

It has not been established as fantasy or reality, thus any attempt to quantify it as either is false.

Yes. That's why to say one is 95% sure of anything in this case is BS, unless you are using it as an allegory, analogy, parable, rethoric figure, etc. One can only qualify, and not quantify. Use "quite likely", "unlikely", etc.

I am assigning a "confidence level" to my belief, for the benefit of those who don't understand the meanings of "belief", "knowledge", "evidence", and "proof."

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Might be"?

The PG film "might be" a hoax?

Why, yes. It "might be."

It also "might be" a genuine film of an uncatalogued animal, also.

And those are the only two options with regard to that piece of evidence, unless you are willing to propose that it is a black bear, an extraterrestrial alien, a robot, or a giraffe.

Carefull not to enter in to some variant of the "everything is possible" line and commit some fallacy. For example...

Prove its not an alien or a robot! Or a robotic alien!
You can't.

You can say its highly unlikely it was an alien. But you can't prove it wasn't. And you know some people think it was an alien...

But you can say something else. I say, for example:

It is under suspicious of being a fraud.
If something smells bad with a data piece, to the garbage can it goes.

I think it most likely is a hoax (a very good one, I must say).

I have a "confidence level" of 99.9% in stating that the subject of the PG film was not an extraterrestrial alien or a robot, and a "confidence level" of 100% in stating that it was not a bear or giraffe, and the courage and committment to state that without hesitation.

 

[tsig]

Not fully.

I again state that there is no proof of the existence of sasquatch, but there is lots of testimony and some photographic and forensic evidence.

It should be enough for a comprehensive study to put the issue to rest one way or the other.

That comprehensive study has yet to occur.



I say you are correct regarding evidence quality, poor handling, hoaxers, and snake oil salesmen, but that "mainstream science" is also playing an irresponsible role, and are not "to blame" for the above mentioned problems.



Any and all photographs would be under suspect of being frauds. This forum literally proves that.



Forgive my utter skepticism regarding that claim.



Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I've seen it too many times.

Nobody bothers with the money tree until it begins to blossom..........

Originally Posted by Huntster
And so?



I'm confident enough to state that neither you or I can't fly like "Superman", and that you are not from "Krypton."

And that whole degenerated parable has very little to do with the possibility of an uncatalogued primate.



I don't need any. You can claim your ability to fly like Superman all day long, and I will reject it out of hand, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.



Thanks to your example?.....................No.



There is enough evidence to justify an official investigation, and considering what has been spent on "snail darters" in the past, it is perfectly justifiable morally.



The data is good "for other purposes", like "they walk on two legs", and "they're furry", etc.

But good enough to declare that there will be a sasquatch standing at 61N 149W at 6:17 AM on the morning of April 27, 2007, waiting for someone to come take his photo?



I agree 100%.

I suggest a team comprised of Drs. Meldrum, Farenbach, and Mioncynski along with the official state wildlife area biologist and habitat biologist and their assistants, a local highly reputable guide/outfitter, and with at least one kennel of trained bear dogs with their handler(s) available at short notice. The state/province selected should be northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, or Southeast Alaska, with coastal BC and SE Alaska high on the list of consideration. The area of operations would be best defined by recent, good quality reports. Organization can occur at any time, but actual operations suspended until decent reports are submitted to an organization like BFRO, so that money isn't spent prematurely.



That certainly wasn't the case with the snail darter. Not only were many, many millions spent and a large dam/electricity project killed, later the evidence showed that the snail darter wasn't endangered at all, and could be found in other locations.

It's a matter if interest and focus, and if one considers the possibility that these creatures exist, and that they are clearly rare (if not endangered, at least in some areas), it is the responsibility of state/federal wildlife management agencies to determine if these creatures exist.



This is the second time you've refused to entertain this consideration.

Embarrassed by the likes of Mad Horn?



I am assigning a "confidence level" to my belief, for the benefit of those who don't understand the meanings of "belief", "knowledge", "evidence", and "proof."



I have a "confidence level" of 99.9% in stating that the subject of the PG film was not an extraterrestrial alien or a robot, and a "confidence level" of 100% in stating that it was not a bear or giraffe, and the courage and committment to state that without hesitation.

Why don't some of you bigfeeters just hire a plane with an IR camera.

I think you can get one for $1200 a flight.


(note there must be more than one bigfoot)

 

[Yeah_Right]

Why don't some of you bigfeeters just hire a plane with an IR camera.

I think you can get one for $1200 a flight.


(note there must be more than one bigfoot)

This probably requires a permit.

 

[Correa Neto]

Not fully.

I again state that there is no proof of the existence of sasquatch, but there is lots of testimony and some photographic and forensic evidence.

It should be enough for a comprehensive study to put the issue to rest one way or the other.

That comprehensive study has yet to occur.

However, the evidence that seems OK for you does not seems to be OK for many other people. Sure, its not a popularity concurse, but perhaps its time for you to consider the possibility that you might not be on the "right" side...

I say you are correct regarding evidence quality, poor handling, hoaxers, and snake oil salesmen, but that "mainstream science" is also playing an irresponsible role, and are not "to blame" for the above mentioned problems.

So, what about dumping all unreliable evidence and starting from square one?
And accept the outcome?
Painfull, but may be the only way.

Any and all photographs would be under suspect of being frauds. This forum literally proves that.

That's a claim that I am highly skeptical of.
Do you really think high-quality still or footage say, from a well-known wildlife photographer or zoologist, who would ruin his/hers professional life and reputation if caught -or just supected of being involved- in a hoax would be dismissed?

But even with this level of reliability, the data must be examinated carefully. Standard proceedure. Nothing to worry about if the stuf is the real deal.

Forgive my utter skepticism regarding that claim.

Ok, its your right.
Just as its my right to think you would not be convinced that bigfeet are not real even if a 3 years- long expedition to the PNW resulted in nothing.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I've seen it too many times.

Nobody bothers with the money tree until it begins to blossom..........

And so?
Any suggestions?

I

'm confident enough to state that neither you or I can't fly like "Superman", and that you are not from "Krypton."

And that whole degenerated parable has very little to do with the possibility of an uncatalogued primate.

Everytime someone tries to pull the "everything is possible" line the parable applies.

I don't need any. You can claim your ability to fly like Superman all day long, and I will reject it out of hand, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

OK. Its your call.
Just like I don´t loose sleep when faced with the pro-bigfoot evidence so far exposed. PGF and dermals included.

There is enough evidence to justify an official investigation, and considering what has been spent on "snail darters" in the past, it is perfectly justifiable morally.

Huntster, I can give you a similar example. An iron mine here in Brazil was blocked for some time because someone found a microcrustacean living in water pools. The critter was suposed to be unique of the (future) pit area. Guess what? After looking at other similar pools nearby they found the microcrustacean... And the mine, despite the delay, is being opened.

But you are mixing a lot of things here. Too many for detailed comment at a single post. For now, I will only say it has to do with methodology, precautions, law, etc.

Not to mention that the cases can not be compared simply because the snail darters and the microcrsutaceans share a common characteristic that is missing for bigfeet (any guesses?). And the people who would or should start the "bigfoot investigation" don't seem to agree with you when it comes to the evidence, and we have already discussed the "whys". Aniway, if there are people who don't agree with the way they are acting, someone should try to change their minds.

The data is good "for other purposes", like "they walk on two legs", and "they're furry", etc.

But good enough to declare that there will be a sasquatch standing at 61N 149W at 6:17 AM on the morning of April 27, 2007, waiting for someone to come take his photo?

Oh, furry and walking in two legs... Very usefull and precise.

If the data were nearly as good as some claim (given the inferences they make using it), then it would enough to locate the "hot spots" and increase the chances of obtaining reliable evidence. But AFAIK, nothing is being obtained. Thus, its my opinion that its not as good and reliable as its "sold".

I agree 100%.

I suggest a team comprised of Drs. Meldrum, Farenbach, and Mioncynski along with the official state wildlife area biologist and habitat biologist and their assistants, a local highly reputable guide/outfitter, and with at least one kennel of trained bear dogs with their handler(s) available at short notice. The state/province selected should be northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, or Southeast Alaska, with coastal BC and SE Alaska high on the list of consideration. The area of operations would be best defined by recent, good quality reports. Organization can occur at any time, but actual operations suspended until decent reports are submitted to an organization like BFRO, so that money isn't spent prematurely.

What's keeping them from teaming and gathering money for this or something similar, if the data is so good and convincing?

So many places to apply for the money, if the evidence is reliable... Let me see... the Jane Goodall Institution, International Primatological Society, Primate Conservation, The Smithsonian, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, WWF, our beloved Greenpiss, and the list goes on...

Maybe its because the crown of the evidence, PGF's subject is not that different from a person wearing a gorilla suit...

That certainly wasn't the case with the snail darter. Not only were many, many millions spent and a large dam/electricity project killed, later the evidence showed that the snail darter wasn't endangered at all, and could be found in other locations.

See above.

It's a matter if interest and focus, and if one considers the possibility that these creatures exist, and that they are clearly rare (if not endangered, at least in some areas), it is the responsibility of state/federal wildlife management agencies to determine if these creatures exist.

Well, then what about you folks doing something about it?

But you'd better have some reliable evidence at your hands...

This is the second time you've refused to entertain this consideration.

Embarrassed by the likes of Mad Horn?

Huntster, is this point relevant to the discussion?
Its the second time I ask...

But let me see if there's something relevant... Maybe there is.

Mad Hom... What sort of things he could have done to embarass me and what it has to do with the issues we are discussing...

Has he made too many mistakes and/or demonstrated lack of knoweledge on the subjects discussed? Hmmm... No. At least not as bad as some others pro- and con-bigfoot posters made. No, no cause for embarassment here...

His posting style... More colorfull than the average posters. Oh, he may be aggressive sometimes and ad homs not uncommon. Well, his nick is not without a reason, and he admits this. And I've seen some "fire exchange" from both sides here. I try to avoid (sometimes without success, as you know) such debate style, but no, I don't feel embarassed by it.

Oh, BTW, I haven't managed to find anything relevant to the issues we are discussing.

Now, let me ask:

Are you embarassed by posters (here, at BFF, wherever) that constantly use ad homs against people who are defending different opinions?

You'd better put this to rest. Unless you can prove its somehow relevant to the case in point. Can you?

I am assigning a "confidence level" to my belief, for the benefit of those who don't understand the meanings of "belief", "knowledge", "evidence", and "proof."

I have a "confidence level" of 99.9% in stating that the subject of the PG film was not an extraterrestrial alien or a robot, and a "confidence level" of 100% in stating that it was not a bear or giraffe, and the courage and committment to state that without hesitation.

OK, but since numbers are quantitative and not qualitative, I still think its not the best way.

In case you want to know, I would say I am very confident that the odds of Patty being an alien, a robot or an alien robot are small enough to be discarted for all practical purposes. Oh, and the same is valid for Patty being a real bigfoot.

 

[William Parcher]

Why don't some of you bigfeeters just hire a plane with an IR camera. I think you can get one for $1200 a flight. (note there must be more than one bigfoot)

This has been done to search for lost or missing people. Those high-tech surveillances do not record any "Bigfoots" while they are looking for humans in these remote forest areas. Prime Bigfoot country never reveals Bigfoot when we are conducting organized searches for missing humans. One ought to wonder how a Bigfoot search would be conducted so that these creatures could be found.

Just what is needed to bring physical confirmation of an animal that would be worth millions if it were confirmed? Even the Bigfoot expedition participants themselves do not look like people who are on the expectant verge of becoming millionaires. It's as if the believers only halfway believe.

 

[RayG]

We do not have the responsibility to show that any evidence is false, until you show what it is evidence of..

I thought it was up to folks to demonstrate that the evidence is true, not the other way around.

RayG

 

[Huntster]

Why don't some of you bigfeeters just hire a plane with an IR camera.

I think you can get one for $1200 a flight.


(note there must be more than one bigfoot)

1) I don't have $1200 to invest in a single flight
2) How well does IR perform in a coastal, temperate rainforest environment with thick cover?
3) How easy would it be for a gaggle of denialists to then claim that any IR images captured were moose, bear, deer, etc?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not fully.

I again state that there is no proof of the existence of sasquatch, but there is lots of testimony and some photographic and forensic evidence.

It should be enough for a comprehensive study to put the issue to rest one way or the other.

That comprehensive study has yet to occur.

However, the evidence that seems OK for you does not seems to be OK for many other people. Sure, its not a popularity concurse, but perhaps its time for you to consider the possibility that you might not be on the "right" side...

I'm on the Huntster's side. By default, I find that the "right" side.

The "Huntster's side":

1) If sasquatches never get "discovered", there won't be a bit of sweat off my brow
2) I have nothing invested in this phenomenon
3) I don't matter, neither does my opinion, and I have no responsibility regarding this situation whatsoever

Originally Posted by Huntster
I say you are correct regarding evidence quality, poor handling, hoaxers, and snake oil salesmen, but that "mainstream science" is also playing an irresponsible role, and are not "to blame" for the above mentioned problems.

So, what about dumping all unreliable evidence and starting from square one?
And accept the outcome?
Painfull, but may be the only way.

I don't "dump" evidence, good or bad. I label it and file it properly. If it is a hoax, it is so labelled and remembered. If inconclusive, ditto. If it looks good to me, is tested fervently, and it is not revealed as a hoax, it's good evidence.

"Painfull, but may be the only way."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Any and all photographs would be under suspect of being frauds. This forum literally proves that.

That's a claim that I am highly skeptical of.
Do you really think high-quality still or footage say, from a well-known wildlife photographer or zoologist, who would ruin his/hers professional life and reputation if caught -or just supected of being involved- in a hoax would be dismissed?

By some? The very people who populate this forum?

You're damned right I believe that.

The PG film is nearly unimpeachable. It has moving footage, it incorporates high quality footprints, independent individuals happening on the scene while some evidence is still there, they photograph the evidence too, and none of it is revealed as hoaxed. Yet look at the fussing and BS that goes on here.

A photo ain't gonna cut it. It's gotta be a corpse, and it has to be rubbed in a lot of noses.

"Painfull, but may be the only way."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Forgive my utter skepticism regarding that claim.

Ok, its your right.
Just as its my right to think you would not be convinced that bigfeet are not real even if a 3 years- long expedition to the PNW resulted in nothing.

That's your right, and you might be correct. I'd have to learn about the "expedition."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I've seen it too many times.

Nobody bothers with the money tree until it begins to blossom..........

And so?
Any suggestions?

The authorities with the responsibility of wildlife management should step up to the plate.

Originally Posted by Huntster
'm confident enough to state that neither you or I can't fly like "Superman", and that you are not from "Krypton."

And that whole degenerated parable has very little to do with the possibility of an uncatalogued primate.

Everytime someone tries to pull the "everything is possible" line the parable applies.

If a sasquatch is found, will you be prepared to fly?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't need any. You can claim your ability to fly like Superman all day long, and I will reject it out of hand, and not lose a wink of sleep over it.

OK. Its your call.
Just like I don´t loose sleep when faced with the pro-bigfoot evidence so far exposed. PGF and dermals included.

Do you reject all such pro-bigfoot evidence "out of hand" and "all day long"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
There is enough evidence to justify an official investigation, and considering what has been spent on "snail darters" in the past, it is perfectly justifiable morally.

Huntster, I can give you a similar example. An iron mine here in Brazil was blocked for some time because someone found a microcrustacean living in water pools. The critter was suposed to be unique of the (future) pit area. Guess what? After looking at other similar pools nearby they found the microcrustacean... And the mine, despite the delay, is being opened.

How about another example? Recent and very relevant:

.....The Federal Aviation Administration's recent approval of plans to move Panama City's airport to 4,000 undeveloped acres in western Bay County donated by the state's largest private landowner violated federal law, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by conservation groups.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, The Defenders of Wildlife and Friends of PFN (Panama City Airport) filed the action to review the FAA decision in the New York's 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Ultimately what we are going to request is that they throw out the FAA decision because the law requires the agency choose the alternative that would cause the least amount of damage to the environment," said Melanie Shepherdson, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney……..
…….In September, scientists said they had seen the rare Ivory-billed woodpecker, a bird once thought extinct, in the nearby Choctawhatchee River basin - a claim that makes conservation all the more urgent, the lawsuit said.
Shepherdson said her organization has already asked the FAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which still has permit approvals pending, to review the project because of the Ivory-billed sightings.
"It is a significant development," she said.....

They said they'd seen it. Sorta like the thousands of sasquatch sightings. A creature that has yet to be "re-discovered", despite Cornell researchers actively looking (with granted money) for the past two years.

Yup. "It's a significant development", all right. The judicial precedent could be very significant, indeed.

If the lawsuit is found to have merit by the court, than it sets the precedent for sasquatches, too.

Maybe state wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service can be forced into looking into the matter by the courts....................

Not to mention that the cases can not be compared simply because the snail darters and the microcrsutaceans share a common characteristic that is missing for bigfeet (any guesses?). And the people who would or should start the "bigfoot investigation" don't seem to agree with you when it comes to the evidence, and we have already discussed the "whys".

Maybe I don't need "experts" to agree.

Maybe a judge will do.....................

Aniway, if there are people who don't agree with the way they are acting, someone should try to change their minds.

I don't think they'll be impressed with me.

But da judge?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree 100%.

I suggest a team comprised of Drs. Meldrum, Farenbach, and Mioncynski along with the official state wildlife area biologist and habitat biologist and their assistants, a local highly reputable guide/outfitter, and with at least one kennel of trained bear dogs with their handler(s) available at short notice. The state/province selected should be northern California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, or Southeast Alaska, with coastal BC and SE Alaska high on the list of consideration. The area of operations would be best defined by recent, good quality reports. Organization can occur at any time, but actual operations suspended until decent reports are submitted to an organization like BFRO, so that money isn't spent prematurely.

What's keeping them from teaming and gathering money for this or something similar, if the data is so good and convincing?

I don't know. Maybe the data isn't good enough or convincing enough to convince the folks with the grant money?

I wonder if it would be good enough for a court of law?

So many places to apply for the money, if the evidence is reliable... Let me see... the Jane Goodall Institution, International Primatological Society, Primate Conservation, The Smithsonian, National Geographic, Discovery Channel, WWF, our beloved Greenpiss, and the list goes on...

Maybe its because the crown of the evidence, PGF's subject is not that different from a person wearing a gorilla suit...

Maybe.

Originally Posted by Huntster
This is the second time you've refused to entertain this consideration.

Embarrassed by the likes of Mad Horn?

Huntster, is this point relevant to the discussion?
Its the second time I ask...

Folks like to associate me with the likes of Beckjord.

But let me see if there's something relevant... Maybe there is.

Mad Hom... What sort of things he could have done to embarass me and what it has to do with the issues we are discussing...

He doesn't embarrass you. He doesn't even seem to embarrass himself in his own eyes.

Has he made too many mistakes and/or demonstrated lack of knoweledge on the subjects discussed? Hmmm... No.

Hmmmmmmmmm..................yeah.

His posting style... More colorfull than the average posters. Oh, he may be aggressive sometimes and ad homs not uncommon.

You claimed to put me on ignore because you accused me of doing such things.

Now, let me ask:

Are you embarassed by posters (here, at BFF, wherever) that constantly use ad homs against people who are defending different opinions?

It depends on:

1) If the poster came initially with grace,
2) The poster was then mauled,
3) And if the poster appears to be correct.

You'd better put this to rest. Unless you can prove its somehow relevant to the case in point. Can you?

Sure, now that you've addressed the issue.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I am assigning a "confidence level" to my belief, for the benefit of those who don't understand the meanings of "belief", "knowledge", "evidence", and "proof."

I have a "confidence level" of 99.9% in stating that the subject of the PG film was not an extraterrestrial alien or a robot, and a "confidence level" of 100% in stating that it was not a bear or giraffe, and the courage and committment to state that without hesitation.

OK, but since numbers are quantitative and not qualitative, I still think its not the best way.

What would you prefer? "A scale of one to ten"? A color code?

 

[carcharodon]

I thought it was up to folks to demonstrate that the evidence is true, not the other way around.

RayG

If somebody is minding his/her own business then they are under no obligation to demonstrate anything. However, as soon as that person starts to scream hoax then automtically the onus is on that person to demonstrate it is a hoax just as much as the onus is on those to demonstrate it isn't.

Sounds fair enough to me. No?

 

[Correa Neto]

I'm on the Huntster's side. By default, I find that the "right" side.

The "Huntster's side":

1) If sasquatches never get "discovered", there won't be a bit of sweat off my brow
2) I have nothing invested in this phenomenon
3) I don't matter, neither does my opinion, and I have no responsibility regarding this situation whatsoever

You might want to change the "by default its the right side" part... Leaves no chance for a dialog.

By some? The very people who populate this forum?

You're damned right I believe that.

The above is somehow relevant to the topic? It adds something to the discussion?

The PG film is nearly unimpeachable. It has moving footage, it incorporates high quality footprints, independent individuals happening on the scene while some evidence is still there, they photograph the evidence too, and none of it is revealed as hoaxed. Yet look at the fussing and BS that goes on here.

Its your opinion.
My opinion is that its a hoax being kept alive by people that are making money from naïve believers and by the naïve believers themselves.

But I will not say my position is right by default.

PGF is suspected to be a hoax. There are pieces of evidence indicating it might be, there are a lot of fishy details.

More than enough to dump it in to the garbage can.

Painfull for some, but its the only way.

A photo ain't gonna cut it. It's gotta be a corpse, and it has to be rubbed in a lot of noses.

"Painfull, but may be the only way."

Maybe. Painfull? Perhaps for the bigfoot...

Specially when some people try to raise flimsy and/or hoaxed evidence to the status of good or even "nearly unimpeachable" data, its natural to raise the required quality level.

That's your right, and you might be correct. I'd have to learn about the "expedition."

At this point, I suspect that even a confession by the PGF hoaxers themselves or the gorilla cloth would not be enough change some people's beliefs...

The authorities with the responsibility of wildlife management should step up to the plate.

I always find amazing how the onus of backing the claim is so quickly moved from the claimer to someone else...

But, if you folks think they should act, then its your responsability to force them to do so.

The discussion you are having with us, trying to convince us, you should have with them.

Grab all the "reliable" data you have and go see them.

If a sasquatch is found, will you be prepared to fly?

If a real bigfoot is found, I will say: WOW! I was wrong! As unlikely as it was, the critters are real. Cool!

But this will not change the fact that the "everything is possible" line is sheer BS.

Do you reject all such pro-bigfoot evidence "out of hand" and "all day long"?

Do you reject all con evidence like this?

How about another example? Recent and very relevant:

They said they'd seen it. Sorta like the thousands of sasquatch sightings. A creature that has yet to be "re-discovered", despite Cornell researchers actively looking (with granted money) for the past two years.

Yup. "It's a significant development", all right. The judicial precedent could be very significant, indeed.

If the lawsuit is found to have merit by the court, than it sets the precedent for sasquatches, too.

If it weren't for a small incovenient detail. The woodpecker has some "advantages" that bigfeet do not have. For example, we knew they existed, there are similar creatures at that particular environment...

Try presenting evidence under suspicious of being a fraud to a court to see the outcome...

Maybe state wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service can be forced into looking into the matter by the courts....................

OK, but then, please tell me, why you bigfoot paladins have not started to do so?

Maybe its because presenting evidence under suspicious of being a fraud to a court is not a very wise move...

Maybe I don't need "experts" to agree.

Maybe a judge will do.....................

Submit the case to a jury. I would like to see it. But remember the issue regarding presenting evidence that may be false...

I don't think they'll be impressed with me.

But da judge?

See above.
Lawyer "pro": Your honor we have this nearly unimpeachable piece of evidence. I present you the PGF!

Judge: "Nearly unimpeachable"?

Lawyer "pro": Your honor, there are some rumors that it may be a fraud...

Judge: "Some rumors"?

Lawyer "con": Hey Lawyer pro, thanks for doing my job. But you will not put your hands on my money.

I don't know. Maybe the data isn't good enough or convincing enough to convince the folks with the grant money?

Now you touched the key issue. And besides the folks with the grant money, wildlife photgraphers, mammalogists, paleontologists, even an average Joe such mas myself...

I wonder if it would be good enough for a court of law?

See above.

BTW, why the bigfoot experts dont gather and move on? Because the data is flimsy and entangled with hoaxes... OK, but if it is, then its not reliable and conclusions draw from it such as habitat, behavior, distribution, population, etc. are completely useless.

Maybe.

Yes, maybe. But it looks like its the case, eh?

Folks like to associate me with the likes of Beckjord.

So what? What's the relevance of this to the present discussion?

Heck, I do not want to know with who the "bigfoot folks" associate me to. No need to tell, I don't care.

Its not relevant to the discussion. Ad homs are not evidence, they are not argument.

He doesn't embarrass you. He doesn't even seem to embarrass himself in his own eyes.

What's the relevance of an ad hominen to a third person to the present discussion?

An attempt to poison the well? A "divide-to-conquer" approach? I hope not, for this could be misinterpreted as a sign that you've run out of arguments!

Have you?

If not, then you'd better drop the line.

You claimed to put me on ignore because you accused me of doing such things.

So what?

I indeed placed you on ignore some time ago and you know why. Why do you want to "unearth the corpse"? I decided to remove you from ignore, since despite the many ad homs you made towards myself, sometimes you can offer a better contribution than Beckjord and AmyWilson (the other folks still down there). Unhappy with my decision? Want me to ignore you again? Huntster, you know that line "you reap what you seed", don't you? We've talked about it before, remember?

I am actually do not enjoy the ad homs exchange that the threads became. Two posters with uhm... Lively and colorfull exchanges are torelable and sometimes funny. More than that its a waste of bandwidth. I have no intention to join the furball. If someone wants a flame war, do it at the propper forum.

Oh, still no sign of relevance to the discussion. All it see is a diversion. Again, I hope its not the case and you just needed to blow some steam.

Better drop this line and move on.

It depends on:

1) If the poster came initially with grace,
2) The poster was then mauled,
3) And if the poster appears to be correct.

A warning: carefull or you'll get entangled in the rope.

Still failing to see any relevance to the present discussion.

Sure, now that you've addressed the issue.

And the relevance would be?

Still can't see any.

I will not touch this issue again unless you show its relevant to the main discussion.

What would you prefer? "A scale of one to ten"? A color code?

A scale from one to ten is numeric, therefore quantitative.
The color code might be OK. "Yellow bigfoot alert" LOL...

 

[RayG]

If somebody is minding his/her own business then they are under no obligation to demonstrate anything. However, as soon as that person starts to scream hoax then automtically the onus is on that person to demonstrate it is a hoax just as much as the onus is on those to demonstrate it isn't.

Sounds fair enough to me. No?

It's not a question of being fair, it's a question of burden of proof. Who has the burden of proof? The claimant.

"The skeptics are under no obligation to disprove all or, for that matter, any of the evidence. The burden of proof rests with those who think that the animals are real. The skeptics are not obligated even to look at the evidence." -- Grover Krantz, Big Footprints, page 7

"Read Krantz." -- LAL

RayG