Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[Spektator]

It seems to me that there is a sharp divide here. One side reasons thus:

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For decades people have been reporting larger-than-human hairy primates from virtually every state in the Union; however,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever produced a clear, unambiguous photograph of one of these primates; further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever discovered clear, unambiguous physical evidence of the existence of such primates, and even further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]there is absolutely no fossil evidence for any large nonhuman primate ever having existed in the New World.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THEREFORE,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the only reasonable conclusion is that reports of such primates result from hoaxes, honest misidentifications, and illusions, or are fictions on the level of folklore. The weight of the evidence suggests there is no such creature as bigfoot.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And the other side reasons thus:
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For decades people have been reporting larger-than-human hairy primates from virtually every state in the Union; however,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever produced a clear, unambiguous photograph of one of these primates; further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3 .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever discovered clear, unambiguous physical evidence of the existence of such primates, and even further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] there is absolutely no fossil evidence for any large nonhuman primate ever having existed in the New World.[/FONT]
5. However, by special pleading, accepting anecdotal evidence as having greater weight than is normally allowed in science, ignoring indications to the contrary, and applying my particular point of view, I can get over all of the above.

[FONT=&quot]THEREFORE,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the only reasonable conclusion is that the bigfoot creature is incredibly more wily and is harder to find than other very scarce creatures like the wolverine; OR that the bigfoot creature is vastly more intelligent than any other nonhuman animal on earth and has senses keener than we can imagine and so evades either being captured or leaving evidence of its existence, OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost![/FONT]

 

[LuvGodzilla]

Thank you Spektator. That is probably the most concise argument for the two sides I have ever read.

 

[atpeace]

Thank you Spektator. That is probably the most concise argument for the two sides I have ever read.

I agree, an excellent summation. But it’s unfortunate it takes (took) some of us former proponents so long to let that sink in, and instead argue (ed) totally unrelated points and personal anecdotes with our comrades to make us feel better.

ap

 

[burmballgeetar]

Just wondering, as far as the skeptics go, is there any picture or video or bigfoot that doesn't scream "fake" to you? With that in mind, how clear of a photo or video would be needed to convince you? It seems to me that no matter how clear it could be, a photo or video would not be enough to sway the opinions of those whose minds are already made up. They can be too easily altered or modified and that, I think, negates them as evidence at all. Would anything short of a body be sufficient?

 

[William Parcher]

Just wondering, as far as the skeptics go, is there any picture or video or bigfoot that doesn't scream "fake" to you? With that in mind, how clear of a photo or video would be needed to convince you?

Sweeeet....

 

[EHocking]

It seems to me that there is a sharp divide here. One side reasons thus:

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]For decades people have been reporting larger-than-human hairy primates from virtually every state in the Union; however,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever produced a clear, unambiguous photograph of one of these primates; further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever discovered clear, unambiguous physical evidence of the existence of such primates, and even further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]there is absolutely no fossil evidence for any large nonhuman primate ever having existed in the New World.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]THEREFORE,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the only reasonable conclusion is that reports of such primates result from hoaxes, honest misidentifications, and illusions, or are fictions on the level of folklore. The weight of the evidence suggests there is no such creature as bigfoot.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And the other side reasons thus:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] For decades people have been reporting larger-than-human hairy primates from virtually every state in the Union; however,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever produced a clear, unambiguous photograph of one of these primates; further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3 .[/FONT][FONT=&quot]in all that time, no one has ever discovered clear, unambiguous physical evidence of the existence of such primates, and even further,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] there is absolutely no fossil evidence for any large nonhuman primate ever having existed in the New World.[/FONT]
5. However, by special pleading, accepting anecdotal evidence as having greater weight than is normally allowed in science, ignoring indications to the contrary, and applying my particular point of view, I can get over all of the above.

[FONT=&quot]THEREFORE,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the only reasonable conclusion is that the bigfoot creature is incredibly more wily and is harder to find than other very scarce creatures like the wolverine; OR that the bigfoot creature is vastly more intelligent than any other nonhuman animal on earth and has senses keener than we can imagine and so evades either being captured or leaving evidence of its existence, OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost![/FONT]

OR that bigfoot does not exist.

Sorry, you really missed the other logical options.

 

[William Parcher]

Attached is a map of Bigfoot reports in North America. Also attached are maps of the human population density. A casual observer of the maps might conclude that Bigfoot lives where we live.

 

[atpeace]

OR that bigfoot does not exist.

Sorry, you really missed the other logical options.

Imay have misunderstood but I thought he covered that quite nicely:


Spektator
"OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost! "
"5. However, by special pleading, accepting anecdotal evidence as having greater weight than is normally allowed in science, ignoring indications to the contrary, and applying my particular point of view, I can get over all of the above."

 

[makaya325]

OR that bigfoot does not exist.

Sorry, you really missed the other logical options.

It should be that Bigfoot is a Biological Impossibility that can not exist because it breaks many natural laws.

 

[xblade]

Just wondering, as far as the skeptics go, is there any picture or video or bigfoot that doesn't scream "fake" to you?

You mean pictures like these?

No, they don't appear fake at all.

With that in mind, how clear of a photo or video would be needed to convince you?

Nothing special. I simply expect the same clarity and quality photo/video we get of every other living creature. Video of bigfoot running down a deer, breaking his neck and eating his innards would be gold. Got any of those? If not, I'll settle for picture quality like....

Got any of those?

It seems to me that no matter how clear it could be, a photo or video would not be enough to sway the opinions of those whose minds are already made up.

Seems to me somebody is making excuses. Too bad we never get any clear vids/pics to find out....ever. That's a bit strange, don't you think? If you get any, let us know. We'd love to see them.

They can be too easily altered or modified and that, I think, negates them as evidence at all.

So can footprints, whoops, whistles, woodknocking etc. Are they negated as well?

Would anything short of a body be sufficient?

Nothing short of a body, living or dead, will provide conclusive, irrefutable proof that bigfoot exists. This standard is no different from any other creature. But you get that clear pic or video first, and we'll worry about the body later.

 

[learner]

Just wondering, as far as the skeptics go, is there any picture or video or bigfoot that doesn't scream "fake" to you? With that in mind, how clear of a photo or video would be needed to convince you? It seems to me that no matter how clear it could be, a photo or video would not be enough to sway the opinions of those whose minds are already made up. They can be too easily altered or modified and that, I think, negates them as evidence at all. Would anything short of a body be sufficient?

I cant speak for other sceptics, but my mind is made up regarding..

Pink unicorns
Fairies
Goblins
Nessie
Bigfoot

I consider them all to be nonexistent by using the same common sense that tells me that there is no leopards in my garden. Il just double check that. nope, none. (add leopards in my garden to list)

 

[LTC8K6]

They'll also tell you that for every photo of a moose or elk you see in Nat Geo, there are a lot of photos that didn't make the grade.

Those pics are not rejected by the magazine because they don't show a moose or an elk. They are rejected because they are not good enough pics of moose or elk for the magazine's pages. That is, they aren't perfect. They would be fine pics to you and me.

 

[GT/CS]

Just wondering, as far as the skeptics go, is there any picture or video or bigfoot that doesn't scream "fake" to you? With that in mind, how clear of a photo or video would be needed to convince you? It seems to me that no matter how clear it could be, a photo or video would not be enough to sway the opinions of those whose minds are already made up. They can be too easily altered or modified and that, I think, negates them as evidence at all. Would anything short of a body be sufficient?

My apologies to the regulars but I couldn't resist.

 

[atpeace]

But we skeptics must remember the subject matter these bfers deal with. “Who are you to comment from behind your computer ???? You‘d _________your shorts too if you got close enough to get a decent photograph!”

check out jostimages-galerie-sharks-man-great-white-shark
these are the ones of the guy touching the great white's nose
(too newbie to post these yet)
Charging grizzly photos (or hippos or rhinos) anyone? Anyone?

Except the Bobs of course. They chased one down. “And see what it got them!”
Ever wonder why they are the only brave ones in the history of Bigfootdom?

Of course, there are the habituated bigfoot, but apparently, they hate press or think cameras are guns or something so the goodhearted researchers would never think of pointing one at them. That is just lousy research technique, upsetting your subject or something.

Wow, and my 16-year-old thinks he owns market on excuses.

ap

 

[GT/CS]

But we skeptics must remember the subject matter these bfers deal with. “Who are you to comment from behind your computer ???? You‘d _________your shorts too if you got close enough to get a decent photograph!”

check out jostimages-galerie-sharks-man-great-white-shark
these are the ones of the guy touching the great white's nose
(too newbie to post these yet)
Charging grizzly photos (or hippos or rhinos) anyone? Anyone?

Except the Bobs of course. They chased one down. “And see what it got them!”
Ever wonder why they are the only brave ones in the history of Bigfootdom?

Of course, there are the habituated bigfoot, but apparently, they hate press or think cameras are guns or something so the goodhearted researchers would never think of pointing one at them. That is just lousy research technique, upsetting your subject or something.

Wow, and my 16-year-old thinks he owns market on excuses.

ap

Hey, lighten up a little. Haven't you heard about the hundreds of people who get maimed and/or killed by bigfoot every year? Oh yeah, right. Sorry.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

mythusmage:

You place too much faith in what other people of like mind tell you.

​

Myself and others put little faith, if any, in what others tell us..

Did you bother to read the title of the thread?

Do you know what " unambiguous " means ?

 

[Vortigern99]

I cant speak for other sceptics, but my mind is made up regarding..

Pink unicorns
Fairies
Goblins
Nessie
Bigfoot

I consider them all to be nonexistent by using the same common sense that tells me that there is no leopards in my garden. Il just double check that. nope, none. (add leopards in my garden to list)

I would like to point out, in fairness to BF proponents (which group included myself until early March), that of the above list, only BF and Nessie are, or could be, natural, biological organisms with superficially plausible physiologies and/or ecosystems. It is only with research into either subject that this plausibility evaporates.

In the case of Nessie, the quantity of food (in the form of fish) required to sustain a breeding population of large reptiles has been shown not to exist in the Loch, and the presence of other natural phenomena -- underwater storms and twisted tree trunks swept aloft by such storms -- easily explains most if not all sightings.

In the case of BF, as has been addressed in this thread many times, the required quantity of food is arguably present in the various places where the animal is reported to inhabit, but the plain fact of the absence of convincing evidence for its existence -- in the form of a type specimen, irrefutable hair, stool or DNA samples, and/or a really good picture like those posted by xblade above or by kitakaze in the opening post -- combines to invalidate, or at least strongly challenge, belief in the animal.

My point: Research is required to fully understand the factors involved with the plausibility of Nessie and BF. With the other, more obviously mythological creatures -- unicorns and fairies, etc. -- such upfront research is not necessary because of the element of magic, an imaginary power which is known not to exist in objective reality.

There is also the matter of credible biological physiology among such mythic creatures; ie, equine animals of all kinds lack horns; hominids lack the proper phylogeny to grow wings, etc. BF and Nessie, on the other hand, possess a believable physiology: aquatic reptiles of the order of the Loch Ness creature are known to have existed in prehistoric times; and G. blacki, for example, was an ancient, giant primate, possibly bipedal.

It is only with close, careful scrutiny of these two subjects that their credibility as extant species crumbles, alone among the fanciful beasties that Learner has listed as objects of his (otherwise righteous) rejection.

 

[atpeace]

I see what you and others are saying now, Vortigern, about plausability, and possibility, and nonexistence, etc etc. I have just come from spending so much time on places where actual science is an option that is rarely if ever explored, debated, or offered, that I see I need a refresher.

ap

 

[EHocking]

Imay have misunderstood but I thought he covered that quite nicely:


Spektator
"OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost! "
"5. However, by special pleading, accepting anecdotal evidence as having greater weight than is normally allowed in science, ignoring indications to the contrary, and applying my particular point of view, I can get over all of the above."

My misunderstanding perhaps - I was taking it from the concluding statement,

THEREFORE.
6. the only reasonable conclusion is that the bigfoot creature is incredibly more wily and is harder to find than other very scarce creatures like the wolverine; OR that the bigfoot creature is vastly more intelligent than any other nonhuman animal on earth and has senses keener than we can imagine and so evades either being captured or leaving evidence of its existence, OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost!

 

[Spektator]

My misunderstanding perhaps - I was taking it from the concluding statement,

THEREFORE.
6. the only reasonable conclusion is that the bigfoot creature is incredibly more wily and is harder to find than other very scarce creatures like the wolverine; OR that the bigfoot creature is vastly more intelligent than any other nonhuman animal on earth and has senses keener than we can imagine and so evades either being captured or leaving evidence of its existence, OR that the bigfoot creature is supernatural and can materialize and dematerialize like a ghost!

I was probably unclear. I meant to illustrate not one conclusion, but two different ways of reasoning--one the kind that ordinary folks would use, which concludes that the odds are way against bigfoot's existence, the other the enthusiast's reasoning that sweeps aside all the implausibilities and concludes that bigfoot exists--as an animal, as an extraterrestrial, as a denizen of the fourth dimension, as a ghost, or what have you.