Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Hairy Man]

Welcome to the board, Hairy Man. I'm just curious, what do you think of the relevance of the PNW biomass argument in light of the fact that BF is reported all over NA? As I've already mentioned much, much further afield depending where your filters are set at.

Filters? Um, I should probably mentioned that I am devoid of any and all techno ability, so if that is a reference to a forum technique or something, you lost me...

If you mean filter, as in not buying every report that comes in from certain ecological areas, then yes...I definitely have strong feelings on where I don't think it's possible to have a primate population.

The Great Basin - there are diverse resources but water is a huge limiting factor, so much so, most of the mountains ranges (even though there are many with mixed confer terrain) are sky-islands...ie., so cut off by the lack of water and desert between the mountain ranges that populations are completely isolated. Lots of competition by elk and wild horses/burros. There simply isn't enough habitat or water to support a large primate. Did they ever? I don't know, elk and horses are introduced and I have Native American stories from the GB, so ??

Alaska - Short growing season for plants. Native populations live almost exclusively off of animal protein (from land and sea)....but what does grow in the growing season is extraordinarily rich and diverse. IF there was a population, I would have to hypothesize some very serious fishing abilities (salmon, etc.), very complex structures, and major migration.

Southwest - Water is limiting; plant resources are limited; growing season short; protection from the elements very limited. I can't even see how it's possible.

Other parts of the U.S. are just as diverse as the PNW, especially Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and parts of Utah (the good parts...). I've traveled and studied those areas, and they are very similar to the PNW. I don't know as much about some other areas, but my studies would suggest that populations are possible in Minnesota/Michigan area, parts of Texas, OK, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, Penn, and the NE...but I am no expert. All I know is that my archaeology friends in those areas are just as proud of their ecosystems as I am of mine....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...the film constitutes proof they were in fact there..

It does no such thing .. The Film constitutes proof that a film was made .. It
provides no evidence as to who was at the site besides the subject we see in the film ..
Maybe some of the missing footage shows someone else though..

If it is your contention Patterson and Gimlin were not there, I would request you provide the proof, this is your claim - no one elses.

Proving they were not there, would be trying to prove a negative ..
You do understand there is a problem with that, don't you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

Just like I can't prove there is no such thing as a non-human North American primate ..

The only claim I have made in this discussion, is that there is no proof ( that I am aware of ) , that Patterson or Gimlin was present at the film site when the film we know as the PGF was made ?

Do you know what proof is ? Can you prove they were there ?


My point, which seems to be escaping you somehow, is that the lack of proof that BH was in the suit, is no more significant than the lack of proof that P&G were at the film sight ...

Do you know what ' obtuse ' means ? Perhaps Lu can fill you in .

 

[kitakaze]

What if this isnt about tube? You know, other people can do research in regard to dermal ridges, and it have nothing to do with Tube.

What if these dermal claims have nothing to do with unknown primates and everything to do with people. That's where the evidence points.

I think your best to take the stance you have - that way you do not have to make a decision and you can sit on the fence for as long as necessary. The answer to those questions is as obvious as the keyboard in front of you.

I have engaged many who are critical of my argument, and they have been much more critical than you - and MUCH more receptive. They were however willing to answer the very questions I put to you - which is why they are no longer as critical as they once were, and are actually looking forward to more results.

Do a simple internet search - and find out for yourself the last time there was a Volcanic eruption in this part of Northern California - then decide for yourself.

The answers are not that difficult, question is, are you brave enough to look for them?

You might be surprised.

Melissa, I gave you the answers as I know them. No wriggling, no googling. Is this what you came up with from asking someone who's been a member longer than two months on my position? I think when you use the word 'best' it reads more like 'copping out'.

Let me make it very clear: I was an ardent proponent before coming here who through further and further detailed examination of the 'best evidence' began to have doubts. By the time I came here I was a fence-sitter only interested in the examination of evidence without baseless speculation. I was respectful and open to a wide range of perspectives but still only interested in the truth of the phenomenom.

It is only after each thread of BF when pursued to the furthest extent disappears like a puff of smoke, pulled to unravelling, and fed up with the weakness of proponent reasoning that in the last two months I became fully skeptical. You think I clash hard with people like Sweaty and carcharodon/Lyndon? You should have seen some of the clashes that Huntster and I would engage in with members like thaiboxerken when they would say that BF is impossible or people who believe otherwise are fools.

You say I don't know you or your motivations when you clearly don't know me nor mine. Nor should you, nor do I care to know you beyond anything your activities (I don't think I can call them experiments) say about dessication ridges. At this point they don't say anything as far as I can see but I very much look forward to further efforts showing otherwise.

What you really don't get concerning me is how totally biased I am. I have no problem admitting it, I would dearly love for sasquatches to exist but I just can't bring myself to do so given the crap and wishful thinking that people try to pass off as evidence for them.

Bravery? What's with you and LAL always going for the dramatic (not to mention your Matlock routine). Again, you're a paralegal's assisitant or a paralegal, right? You think you're being totally objective but I don't see it. You talk of bravery and so many people who call themselves believers (not that you are) or proponents (which is the respectful term I tried to make common use here) delude themselves into thinking that they're thinking outside the box and taking the hard road. They seem to think most the world around them ignorant of the truth of the creatures in their backyards. That evil, dogmatic, backward skeptics are their sworn enemies who seek to repress the truth with their vitriol. What drama! What fine distraction!

Honestly I have to ask some of these newer BFF members that are popping up over here, was there never I time when you found yourself shaking your head at what was around you there? If so you'll certainly find relief that it doesn't fly here. LAL, and maybe more so Huntster I can admire for their perseverance here. I genuinely like the way Huntster challenges peoples thinking even if he is occasionally wrong. Lu, I'm starting to wonder about (sorry, but honesty over flattery). I try to be attentive to her contributions but it really does get difficult when someone seems so out of touch that they can't seem to recognize that posting the same things over and over isn't going to persuade us that sasquatches exist or most likely do. We keep the door open a crack and wait for some reliable evidence to come forward. Some like myself even actively seek it out as best they can so obviously when you say you go into the field in Texas it can be appreciated.

If I was on Vancouver Island again I know I'd be in the field as much as I could. It's too bad all these proponents organizing expeditions all over the continent aren't having better luck but I'm sure a night in the woods and a spapped twig, creepy sound is well worth it for memory's sake. I'd say one of the best things an objective proponent beyond treeline's reach (that's all it really takes with most people) can do is to join a forum like this and educate yourself in an environment where bigfoot emulating parrots are left for another board and Chilcutt, Meldrum, Bindernagel's, etc word are not taken as gospel.

But a warning:
If you choose to do so you might discover that the end form of a truly objective proponent after examining everything we have is to find themselves a skeptic. Speaking from experience it sucks to see bigfoot walk from the realm of the real and back to that of fantasy but it really is liberating once you have the bravery to face that.

 

[kitakaze]

Filters? Um, I should probably mentioned that I am devoid of any and all techno ability, so if that is a reference to a forum technique or something, you lost me...

If you mean filter, as in not buying every report that comes in from certain ecological areas, then yes...I definitely have strong feelings on where I don't think it's possible to have a primate population...

I'm the one with the Techno ability but I'm not much of a computer geek, either. I meant filters in the second sense and your answer was very interesting. Please standby for LAL's posting of some manner of precipitation/bf sighting map.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

My point, which seems to be escaping you somehow, is that the lack of proof that BH was in the suit, is no more significant than the lack of proof that P&G were at the film sight ...

Not only will there never be any PROOF that Bob H. was in the "suit"....but there isn't even one shred of evidence that he was in the "suit".

That is very significant. It's what you call......a problem.

 

[Blackdog]

... I don't think it was BH in the suit. Heck, I don't even think it looks like I man in a suit. That's what being a proponent and staring at the thing until your eyes melt will do to you. That doesn't mean I can't reconcile my fallible perception with the facts.

I like that...

The subject of BF has been, literally, a life long interest of mine (I blame my father) and over the years the way I have looked at it has run the gamut. I've looked at the film and have seen a bigfoot and I've looked at the film and have seen a good hoax. I don't think that any of the current BF films alone are ever going to convince anyone of anything unless you have a bias to be persuaded one way or the other. That's what makes intelligent discussion of this subject so difficult, most people are too polarized.

The testimony of Patterson and Gimlin is inconsistent and so is that of Bob H., throw both out, it just isn't going to be enough to substantiate either version. Greg Long's book seems of be unacceptable to both sides as a satisfactory account of the history of the event, so throw that out. Why even try and debate any part of it?

To try and make a logical conclusion out of a statement like this, "...if BH was NOT the "guy-in-the-suit"....then who was??", is fallacious in so many ways it is hardly worth commenting on, of course it could have been someone else...why not? That's how ridiculous these discussions can get.

Honestly I have to ask some of these newer BFF members that are popping up over here, was there never I time when you found yourself shaking your head at what was around you there?

Of course, and it’s only gotten worse. There actually was a time when good discussion was the norm there, even a time when we could laugh at ourselves. And although there is the occasional objective discussion, the BS is by far the norm now. I’m not at all blaming the administration or the old timers but there is a PC attitude that over rides everything else. To each their own I guess, I miss the old days but they are long gone.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It is only after each thread of BF when pursued to the furthest extent disappears like a puff of smoke, pulled to unravelling, and fed up with the weakness of proponent reasoning that in the last two months I became fully skeptical.

I feel bad for you, kitakaze.

As for BF evidence disappearing....how about Dfoot's attempt at re-creating Patty's cheap suit? That evaporated into nothingness....and actually strengthened the case for Patty being the real deal.

Also...there are many reported sightings across the country....they haven't "evaporated into smoke".
A great example is Joyce's sighting report. The best YOU could do to try to explain it away was to propose that she might be a "nutcase"....without providing a reason for us to think that that is at all a LIKELY explanation.
The problem with your theory is that when I talked to her, she showed absolutely no signs of being a nut. Only a very friendly, enthusiastic and helpful woman.

 

[Blackdog]

He was an honor student, volunteer, young republican, and a local hero... In his early years ****** was an all-around nice guy. He volunteered for the Republican Party and in his early years he also managed a suicide hotline. He had a degree in psychology from the University of Washington, where he graduated with honors, and he went to law school in Salt Lake City. ****was well liked by the people with whom he worked and also by his professors. He even saved a young boy from drowning once, and was hailed in his hometown newspaper as a "hero."

Any guesses who?

 

[Hairy Man]

Oh come on...toooooo easy. Ted Bundy!


It wasn't Ted in the suit was it? ;-)

 

[Blackdog]

LMAO, yeah that was too easy, maybe it was Joyce in the suit!!!!!

 

[LAL]

OH...I'd like to thank you, Melissa, for showing some support for me when I got booted off the BFF. Lu just recently told me you had sent a moderator a PM, protesting it.

Thank you very much...I really appreciate that.

Well, no that's not quite what I said, but it's close.

 

[kitakaze]

I like that...

The subject of BF has been, literally, a life long interest of mine (I blame my father) and over the years the way I have looked at it has run the gamut. I've looked at the film and have seen a bigfoot and I've looked at the film and have seen a good hoax. I don't think that any of the current BF films alone are ever going to convince anyone of anything unless you have a bias to be persuaded one way or the other. That's what makes intelligent discussion of this subject so difficult, most people are too polarized.

The testimony of Patterson and Gimlin is inconsistent and so is that of Bob H., throw both out, it just isn't going to be enough to substantiate either version. Greg Long's book seems of be unacceptable to both sides as a satisfactory account of the history of the event, so throw that out. Why even try and debate any part of it?

To try and make a logical conclusion out of a statement like this, "...if BH was NOT the "guy-in-the-suit"....then who was??", is fallacious in so many ways it is hardly worth commenting on, of course it could have been someone else...why not? That's how ridiculous these discussions can get.

That's right, Blackdog. Chuck the PGF and all the other 'films' we have to date. They're crap, they're insubmissable, and they do nothing to further the debate. Any proponent who wants to be taken seriously and thinks the PGF is real, by all means, take your LMS copy, your giant hi-def plasma widescreen TV, a few of your footer buddies, and have a Zema fueled frame by frame love-fest that gives you the warm fuzzies and suspends your disbelief for another week but FFS stop trotting the thing out here. It's poo, flush it. Until we have something better to look at to compare it to that's the way it will stay.

So many pouty, incensed footers whine that when we ask for reliable evidence to look at we are in fact asking for proof and will not be 'persuaded' by anything less. Stop cycling through go nowhere arguments that end in the usual suspects and unfortunately's.

Tell you what, let's make a list of things that would start getting our attention and get people to start taking the subject seriously. Just quote this and add to the list. I'll start with the obvious:

1. A clear video or still image of good quality and reliable pedigree.

 

[kitakaze]

Of course, and it’s only gotten worse. There actually was a time when good discussion was the norm there, even a time when we could laugh at ourselves. And although there is the occasional objective discussion, the BS is by far the norm now. I’m not at all blaming the administration or the old timers but there is a PC attitude that over rides everything else. To each their own I guess, I miss the old days but they are long gone.

Though I was never a member I remember those times. I predict we'll be seeing some more BFF members showing up here in the coming months.

 

[kitakaze]

I feel bad for you, kitakaze.

Oh, that's ok. Here you go. Oh yes, and don't forget this.

As for BF evidence disappearing....how about Dfoot's attempt at re-creating Patty's cheap suit? That evaporated into nothingness....and actually strengthened the case for Patty being the real deal.

Be my guest.

Also...there are many reported sightings across the country....they haven't "evaporated into smoke".

Like Dr. Matthew Johnson's? Maybe you could be a dear and put Joyce in touch with him.

A great example is Joyce's sighting report. The best YOU could do to try to explain it away was to propose that she might be a "nutcase"....without providing a reason for us to think that that is at all a LIKELY explanation.
The problem with your theory is that when I talked to her, she showed absolutely no signs of being a nut. Only a very friendly, enthusiastic and helpful woman.

My theory, huh? The asparagus condition is progressive I see. We must get you some fish oil or ginko or something to help with that selective/faulty memory of yours:

Over the course of several days, his input amounted to nothing more than "she might be nuts" ....with no reason supplied as to why that would be a likely explanation.

I replied:

I don't remember saying something that amounted to 'she might be nuts' in giving a fourth option mentioning the possibilty of a manufactured memory. I do remember saying they could only be possibilities with out any evidence of the claimed event. I am starting to wonder about you, though. I'm sure you'll hop and fetch the quote, try not to muck it up.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I don't remember saying something that amounted to 'she might be nuts' in giving a fourth option mentioning the possibilty of a manufactured memory.

You used the phrase..."psychologically manufactured".
I'm translating it into "nutcase"....or delusional.

Can you expound on what you mean by that phrase?

Imagining "possiblities", without giving ANY reason why those possibilities should be considered PROBABLE explanations is simply NOT analysis of evidence...in this case Joyce's report and phone call to me.
All that amounts to is saying "it could be anything". That's how skeptics "analyse" Bigfoot evidence, by throwing out possibilities.

Here's a fresh example....from Blackdog....concerning "Bob H in the suit"...

of course it could have been someone else...why not? That's how ridiculous these discussions can get.

It certainly COULD have been someone else....that IS a "possibility".
BUT....is that a LIKELY scenario?
Did Blackdog provide ANY REASON why we should consoder that to be LIKELY....or PROBABLE?

NO...he didn't. He just threw out a "possibility". That's the FULL EXTENT of a skeptic's "analysis".

I'll give a reason why I don't think that it's likely later, when I have more time to do so.

 

[Correa Neto]

He's risking his reputation to even look into it. Of course he has critics. Anyone who "knows" Giant Sloths no longer exist can be a critic.

Oh, an answer following the old "Galileo was proven to be right" line...

Here's an usefull link showing some lines bigfoot defenders must avoid if they want to be taken seriously:
http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm
Check item 27.

How can anyone turn a vaguely humanoid hairy carnivore beast with an alligator-like skin in to a plant-eating ground sloth? Such distortion and biased interpretation forces me to question his methods regarding this subject.

Have you noticed there were fresh prints with the measurements given backing the claim? He did get funding and he did get an article in the same magazine that had a short piece dismissing "Bigfoot" because the Teslin hair turned out to be bison, among other things (mostly innacurate). There was no mention that the hair was from a long dead Wood Bison. Whatever was seen around Teslin, it wasn't that Bison.

Ah, footprints! Hair samples that are not from the critter that was reported!

How can you know if what was seen "around Tesli" was a bigfoot? Because someone said it was? How... Reliable.

Not buying. You are wasting your time.

I'd rather play bridge. Maybe I could be the fourth.

Sorry, I don't like card games.
Got reliable evidence for bigfeet?

I don't.

Oh, you don't turn a mythological vaguely humanoid hairy carnivore beast with an alligator-like skin in to a real living plant-eating ground sloth. But someone else does and it seems you don't see a problem. Perhaps because it fits your views?

Think on how little distortion there is between a 1793 report from South Carolina and reports of extra tall in the '80s from near a dam in British Columbia. How would someon in 1793 possibly receive information about the "Stik Indians"? The west wasn't "settled" yet. South Carolna Indians (I don't know the tribe, but I'm certain they'd be extinct now),had a name for them and so do the Kwakiutl and the Tlinglit. Those tribes are about as far apart as it's possible to get and still be on the same continent.

Well, since we know myths on "hairy wildmen" are not exactly rare, I see absolutely no problem. Its not a reliable evidence of bigfeet.

Oh, I thought you didn't want to discuss mythology...

Maybe South Americans are still into mythology, but making up fanciful animals (other than Rudolf the Red-nose Reindeer) doesn't seem to be a really big thing in the US anymore, even among the remnants of the first citizens.

I must have missed all the reports that have sasquatches alligator-skinned with eyes in the abdomen.

You are demonstrating ignorance on mythology and prejudice regarding South Americans. Please avoid making ad hom attacks. Such tactics are useless, they will not increase the quality of the evidence and reasoning you and the other posters exposed so far.

Other than height, weight, density of hair or color and some elaborations that resemble hallucinations rather than sightings (and may be nothing but), there aren't many. Got sources for these dissimilarities?

LAL, we've already discussed this. Kitakaze, at his first posts IIRC spoke about the supposed remarkable similarities between the descriptions. I said the similarities depend on "filtering" the descriptions. RayG also posted some interesting info on North America's unknown bipedal apes' everchanging morphology.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1440856&postcount=2369
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1451051&postcount=2520
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1580221&postcount=3655

There are differences in height from 1.8 to 3m, hair color can be pale grey, dark grey, brown, red; body build can be skinny,muscular or fat; there are differences in the face, ammount of body hair, some have glowing red eyes, etc. To obtain a "standard bigfoot" from the reports is really not different from the cherry-picking of myths some investigators use to "build" bigfoot. And when one tries to use all the characteristics, the results are Coleman's 12 crypto-apes or something similar...

Mutiple witnesses, film and casts aren't good enough, are they? Maybe some lucky hiker will be able to snag some DNA using his fingernails.

Not buying, LAL. Repetition will not convince me to buy.

Multiple witnesses, films and stills are not enough to convince me ghosts are real.
Multiple witnesses, stills, miracles and stain interpretations are not enough to convince me Jesus, the devil, god and saints are real.
Multiple witnesses, films, stills, footprints, landing marks, radar contacts are not enough for me to think UFOs are alien craft.
Why should I consider evidence of similar quality as reliable when it comes to bigfoot? The only possible answer is personal bias.

I think that if these critters were real, by now some lucky person could have snagged a specimen or DNA or high-quality footage. No need for fingernail use.

Such as hair and scat? Sasquatch lays? Recorded vocalizations?

The above are misrepresentations, LAL...
The hair and scat samples were never demonstrated to be of bigfeet or from any unidentified species. They are only claimed to be from bigfeet. The same is valid for the "lays", the same is valid for the vocalizations.

Theres plenty. That you chose to explain it away does not make it unreliable. First hand examination has convinced more than one sceptic.

Oh, yeah, touching the holy relics should convert the infidels, since the words of Meldrum and Krantz have not touched their hardened hearts...

"Looks like a guy in an ape suit" doesn't do it for me.

This is Patty and an ape:

[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-3-1085280587.gif[/qimg]

Good match on the muscles, don't you think?

No.
BTW, Patty now is a gorilla?
Wasn't she supposed to be a gigantopithecus with the IM of an australopithecine?

And I see no point in answering it. There is not nearly the evidence for any of those, even the possible ones, that there is for sasquatches. Myths don't leave prints and transportation over light years is not required.

Myths don't leave footprints. But mistakes and hoaxes can make people think mythical beasts are walking around. OK, some are not mythical, such as giant penguins...

Haven't I mentioned electrical discharges and granite deposits already? Sleep paralysis, schizophrenia, migraine phenomena? I'm always up for reasonable, rational and natural explanations for everything.

Bigfoot included?
Minesota Iceman included?

Provide the link.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1188311&postcount=1731

 

[kitakaze]

You used the phrase..."psychologically manufactured".
I'm translating it into "nutcase"....or delusional.

I'm not responsible for what ignorance or lack of education does to you.

Can you expound on what you mean by that phrase?

Basic psychology isn't of much interest to where it concerns bigfoot is it, Sweaty? That's not surprising given what a desire to believe does to your judgement. Let's see... so all people that have a clear memory of an event that didn't occur are psychotic? I remember very clearly about 20 years ago when I was 9 seeing what I thought was a ghost. I can visualize details quite vividly, it was quite alarming to say the least. Never happened. Last time checked, I was doing alright. Then again, ThAZZ wOT thEE... REell nuTJoBBZ ALL WAYz sEY...

Imagining "possiblities", without giving ANY reason why those possibilities should be considered PROBABLE explanations is simply NOT analysis of evidence...in this case Joyce's report and phone call to me.
All that amounts to is saying "it could be anything". That's how skeptics "analyse" Bigfoot evidence, by throwing out possibilities.

Give us one good reason why we should think Joyce saw a real bigfoot and look twice before posting.

It certainly COULD have been someone else....that IS a "possibility".
BUT....is that a LIKELY scenario?
Did Blackdog provide ANY REASON why we should consoder that to be LIKELY....or PROBABLE?

NO...he didn't. He just threw out a "possibility". That's the FULL EXTENT of a skeptic's "analysis".

I'll give a reason why I don't think that it's likely later, when I have more time to do so.

BTW Kev, I think I might not be the only one who thinks your posts look kinda like my 'nutjob' text. Do YOU... KNOW what I MEAN????

 

[kitakaze]

Oh, an answer following the old "Galileo was proven to be right" line...

Here's an usefull link showing some lines bigfoot defenders must avoid if they want to be taken seriously:
http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm
Check item 27.

Thanks Correa. Hey Sweaty, enjoy. #38, just for you! I actually like to imagine your ellipsis abuse as heavy breathing.

 

[LTC8K6]

The PGF is fake but accurate.....

 

[LAL]

Welcome to th brawl, Hairy Man.

What about North Carolina? We have huge amounts of forested land and swamps and NC joins both Tennessee and Georgia.

Oh, you mentioned the Carolinas. My bad. I didn't see that.