Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

Status
Not open for further replies.
The discussions here have helped me a lot, but when I look at certain aspects of the creature in the PGF, I'm left convinced that these things are real. Besides the film, I find some of the eyewitness experiences to be convincing both individually and as a whole. So I can't say I'm 100% certain that Bigfoot are real, but I'm still pretty convinced.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
The discussions here have helped me a lot, but when I look at certain aspects of the creature in the PGF, I'm left convinced that these things are real. Besides the film, I find some of the eyewitness experiences to be convincing both individually and as a whole. So I can't say I'm 100% certain that Bigfoot are real, but I'm still pretty convinced.
Click to expand...

Let me say this once and once only.
There is no such thing as FigBoot.

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OntarioSquatch said:
The discussions here have helped me a lot,
Click to expand...
No they haven't.

OntarioSquatch said:
. . . but when I look at certain aspects of the creature in the PGF,
Click to expand...
Do mean things like the way the backside seems to have the identical construction to the gorilla suits Charles Gemora was wearing on film decades before, or the fact that Roger Patterson was a well-known con artist who had already faked footprints?

OntarioSquatch said:
. . . I find some of the eyewitness experiences to be convincing both individually and as a whole.
Click to expand...
Can you provide an example of one such experience you find to be convincing and explain why you think so without committing any of the common logical fallacies that so plague bigfootery?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The discussions here have helped me a lot, but when I look at certain aspects of the creature in the PGF, I'm left convinced that these things are real. Besides the film, I find some of the eyewitness experiences to be convincing both individually and as a whole. So I can't say I'm 100% certain that Bigfoot are real, but I'm still pretty convinced.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the film to definitively distinguish Patty from an actor in a suit, and there never will be, imo.

So for me, the PGF itself is a novelty and nothing more. There's nothing there for me one way or the other.

Patty is dismissed for me by the story surrounding the appearance and creation of the film, and by the events just after.
 
ComfySlippers said:
Let me say this once and once only.
There is no such thing as FigBoot.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I won't change my stance from Bigfoot proponent to pseudoskeptic. There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.

The Shrike said:
Can you provide an example of one such experience you find to be convincing and explain why you think so without committing any of the common logical fallacies that so plague bigfootery?
Click to expand...

One that I find sort of credible are the experiences of the NAWAC. It'd be pretty crazy if it turned out that those people are all making it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Sort of credible" is the best you can do, and you think NAWAC has a bead on a real sasquatch in southeastern Oklahoma? Your logical approach to this is that you need skeptics to prove a negative for you to be convinced that there are no bigfoots?

For as much as you've participated here Ontario, this is really sad stuff. Assuming you are in agreement that there are no living Triceratops wandering around, say southeastern Oklahoma, right now, can you tell us how you know that? If that's too challenging, could you please just explain what it would take for you to change your mind to being convinced that there is no bigfoot? (Skeptics are quite clear about what it would take to convince them that there is.)
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Certain things about her like the knee bend aren't possible for humans to successfully replicate http://i40.tinypic.com/1zzj6e8.png
Click to expand...

Please, be so kind as to tell me what, precisely you are comparing between the two knees shown in the picture? I mean, serioously:
1. One is flat-footed, the other in extreme heels (love the boots, though),
2. One appears to be toward the end of a stride cycle, the ohter somewhere in the late middle, or in early recovery;
3. The thighs are at different angles;
4. The pictures are at different scales;
5. The reference polygons are insultingly different, indexed to different portions of the anatomy;
6. There is no attempt to adjust for the sizes of the figuers, nor for the sizes of the photos;
7. There is no attempt to adjust for the different angles of the photos...
And so on.

Seriously, what do you think those photos have to say about postures and movements that "cannot be duplicated"?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Thanks, but I won't change my stance from Bigfoot proponent to pseudoskeptic. There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.
Click to expand...
Total lack of bigfoot ***** this argument up big time. Sort of the way total lack of mermaids ***** up the mermaid claims. And dead Elvis trumps live Elvis. Some things are just what they are. Like no bigfoot.


One that I find sort of credible are the experiences of the NAWAC. It'd be pretty crazy if it turned out that those people are all making it up.
Click to expand...
People tell stories every day. Ketchum (DVM) told you folks a whopper and many bought it, and some are still buying. Five years and no, as in none, biological evidence from area xyz is hardly credible. It's for rubes.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Thanks, but I won't change my stance from Bigfoot proponent to pseudoskeptic. There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.
Click to expand...


No one is saying that bigfoot is scientifically excluded. The proper position without appropriate evidence, however, is the null hypothesis. We have no reason to believe that bigfoot exists. We've seen no evidence sufficient to say that bigfoot exists. So, we will assume he does not until sufficient evidence is collected. There's nothing "pseudo" about that kind of skepticism.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.
Click to expand...

Using that that logic there is no way to prove that there are no dragons in the wild.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
One that I find sort of credible are the experiences of the NAWAC. It'd be pretty crazy if it turned out that those people are all making it up.
Click to expand...

Its crazy to think all the people who report being abducted by aliens are somehow wrong, too. And the people who have "impossible" experiences with homeopathy. And people who report faith healings. And psychics. And ghosts. And angels. Etc ect etc.

Do you believe all those things are real, too?

One thing that you can count on is - people see what they believe. This will, of course, count for skeptics, too. Which is why evidence beyond eyewitness accounts/anecdotes is so important.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
One that I find sort of credible are the experiences of the NAWAC. It'd be pretty crazy if it turned out that those people are all making it up.
Click to expand...

I think you need to go back and read some of the older parts of threads about the TBRC/NAWAC stuff here. Much as I detest AlaskaBushPilot, he did a great job researching some of the claims and trying to pinpoint the location. At that point Bryan joined the conversation. When you read it I want to you to pay attention to how he responds to any suggestion that the group could be hoaxed.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
[...] There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.
Click to expand...

Actually the claim that a large, undiscovered hominid exists in NA is what needs to be proved. Got any unambiguous positive evidence for that? No? What a shock.

Since your argument would work just as well for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, I'm afraid we just can't take you seriously.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Thanks, but I won't change my stance from Bigfoot proponent to pseudoskeptic. There currently isn't a way to know for sure that there's no such thing as Bigfoot in the wild, so the claim that there isn't a large undiscovered hominid doesn't exactly hold up scientifically.
Click to expand...
You might just want to read up on the concepts of "proving a negative" and scientific theory. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom