arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I love a good ghost story too, but that doesn't mean that I think ghosts might actually exist.
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
AmyStrange
Master Poster
That's true, but it also might just mean that the "perfectly natural phenomenon" is just something we haven't yet discovered and that it also might be something that we now think is paranormal in nature.
Who knows what the future holds?
If you were living a thousand years in the past, and somehow a time traveler came back and showed you a smartphone, what would you think it was?
-
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
That argument isn't as good as you think it is. We actually know an awful lot - there's not a lot of room for "new physics" that isn't very esoteric and on the fringe of the quantum realm. We know the fundamental forces that govern the universe. We know how ecology works. We know that a breeding population of large mammals cannot be sustained without a significant number of individuals and a very large area. Unless we do actually establish that some phenomenon exists that can't be explained by our current science, no "new science" is needed. And that has not been established.
Again, any phenomenon has an explanation within current science, even if we do not currently know what it is. There is little room for "new science" - it's just another "god of the gaps" style argument.
We know that the future holds science that is much like today's - just with additional detail. New scientific discoveries rarely completely overturn current science. While it does happen occasionally, the vast majority of science consists of explaining reality at greater and greater detail.
Demonstrate conclusively that some phenomenon exists that cannot, in principle, be explained by currently known science, then let's talk.
Irrelevant. I don't live a thousand years ago, and smartphones didn't exist then. A thousand years ago the scientific method had not been codified the way it is today. Magic was a reasonable explanation for phenomena that were not understood. Today, we know that there is no magic, and everything has a natural explanation.
Here's a better hypothetical: If some alien suddenly appeared today with a device from its technology, which was a thousand years more advanced than ours, I would not think it was magic. I would think that their technology was more advanced than ours, and I would look for a scientific description of how it worked.
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Not yet anyway, and you might be right that it never will be, but I don't like to confine myself to just thinking inside the box.
-
AmyStrange
Master Poster
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
But the box is huge, and fascinating.
Isn't enough to acknowledge that the garden is beautiful without thinking that there are fairies at the bottom of it?
AmyStrange
Master Poster
And that was my point. What was then thought of as magic (or paranormal) now has a natural explanation.
-
AmyStrange
Master Poster
It is fascinating, but I'm a writer, and what I do is dream up things that don't happen in the real world.
I don't think life would be as much fun without some of those fairies that you mentioned.
As far as the paranormal is concerned, I only deal in hard facts and nothing else when I do my research, and sometimes those same facts can be interpreted in more than one way.
-
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Sorry arthwollipot, I'm abandoning the direction our discussion is headed, because I think it might end up veering us away from the original intent of this thread, and that's mainly about Bigfoot and not the paranormal in general.
-
-
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
I never got into that BF Alien / Ghost stuff ~ It was hard enough just keeping faith with the one that was most certainly living in the real with us.
Living in Plymouth, MA one of the most Ghostly places a good part of my life I have yet to see Myles Standish looking over Plymouth Rock shaking his head with a look of BS on his face.
RRS
Long Live The Thylacine
Living in Plymouth, MA one of the most Ghostly places a good part of my life I have yet to see Myles Standish looking over Plymouth Rock shaking his head with a look of BS on his face.
RRS
Long Live The Thylacine
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Hopefully, you've now seen from the further posts on this one, that this is just a con, perpetrated by fraudsters for fame and financial profit.
Nests? For heaven's sake...
Now, remember that you cited this area as being a possible habitat for Bigfoots, due to it not having been explored much. Now, how does that reconcile with these supposed sightings, in which it's apparently easy to wander in and stumble across Bigfoot nests (whatever they may be), and to encounter the creatures lolloping across roads?
I don't see how both these can be true, and the most reasonable explanation is that there are no huge, hard-to-see-in-a-remote-area animals, which are simultaneously easy to spot and leave signs of their presence all over the place: it's just a combination of genuine misidentifications (the overlap between supposed BF sightings and black bear habitat is striking), and outright fraud.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Hey, I just googled, "Bigfoot"+"Olympic", and those were the first two hits. Maybe your luck will be better, but yes I agree with your assessment.
Like I posted before, crap like that is why Bigfoot research is not taken seriously by the scientific community.
I used to keep track of Bigfoot sightings, but I've been busy with my six novels.
-
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
I think the reason Bigfoot research is not being taken seriously by the scientific community is because there is no Bigfoot research. What we see are either well-meaning attempts by confused amateurs to somehow wedge their claimed experiences into something resembling biological plausibility, or cynical attempts by fraudsters to conceal their money-making grifting in a veneer of scientific respectability. The scientific community (generally) does not dismiss new or novel ideas out of hand. It does, however, deal rather sharply with pseudoscience and fraud.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
I may not have actually been looking for it, but I did do serious Bigfoot research:
https://www.atomadness.com/UNX-sasquatch.html#nativeamericanlegends
ETA: I'm having a problem with the security certificate for my original domain name (amystrange.org) so I've moved it to my other domain (atomadness.com) and some of the links won't work.
-
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 26,827
Amy, do you consider yourself a Bigfoot believer?
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Not really, but when I first started out, I did.
Now, I think the odds are against it, but there are some anomalies that make me wonder if I'm right in that assessment.
-
autumn1971
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,466
Hopefully, you've now seen from the further posts on this one, that this is just a con, perpetrated by fraudsters for fame and financial profit.
Nests? For heaven's sake...
Now, remember that you cited this area as being a possible habitat for Bigfoots, due to it not having been explored much. Now, how does that reconcile with these supposed sightings, in which it's apparently easy to wander in and stumble across Bigfoot nests (whatever they may be), and to encounter the creatures lolloping across roads?
I don't see how both these can be true, and the most reasonable explanation is that there are no huge, hard-to-see-in-a-remote-area animals, which are simultaneously easy to spot and leave signs of their presence all over the place: it's just a combination of genuine misidentifications (the overlap between supposed BF sightings and black bear habitat is striking), and outright fraud.
I’ve said it before, but with logging roads and hunting camps, the most remote parts of the Pacific Northwest are accessible fairly easily.
The Everglades are much more difficult to access in a lot of ares, and science was still able to tag every one of only about 50 Florida panthers existing.
Once a Bigfoot team does that sort of work I’ll be happy to see the results.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Again, if there are anomalies, look into them. Look at possible naturalistic explanations for them that do not require the hypothesis of a breeding population of giant hominid ape that has remained hidden for decades.
Would you like to present one such anomaly for us to examine?
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Well, there's the weirdness of the Patterson film, but I'm not going anywhere near that one.
But, what do you know about the Native American Legends that are related to Bigfoot?
Or, how about Grover S. Krantz?
And of course, there's also the three friends I mentioned here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14232104#post14232104
Unfortunately, there's really nothing there to examine except my reaction to what they told me, but of course, there's always the option to not believe me, which I wouldn't blame you in the least.
-
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
You mean the known, admitted hoax? The guy who wore the gorilla suit (Bob Heironimus) fessed up.
Only that most of them don't have the provenance that is usually claimed for them. Stories of the Florida Skunk Ape are said to go back centuries, but in fact date from no earlier than 1971.
The guy who thought the Patterson-Gimlin film looked like a guy wearing a gorilla suit, and was never able to conclusively demonstrate otherwise?
Well, you know what they say about anecdotes...
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 26,827
We have a thread on Native Americans and Bigfoot.
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104878
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104878
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Like I said, I'm not going there.
Close, but no cigar. What I'm thinking of is...
and his theory about Sasquatch.
-
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 25,648
RedRatSnake
Slithering Through life
Not going to reread that thread. But history does seem to repeat, doesn't it?
~ Just as perfectly as the world turns ~
RRS
Axxman300
Philosopher
Of all the legends I've opened my mind to over the years, Mr. Foot has been relegated to the "Cool Story, Bro" shelf along with the Loch Ness Monster, and Area 51. This is due to the same basic reasons already listed in this thread by others:
1. Commercial development of regions where Mr. Foot is supposed to roam. Logging/mining roads, and their respective operations. Expansion of vacation homes branching out from multiple small towns.
2. Cell phone cameras.
3. Trail cameras and other hunting technologies like tree-stands, stands, and hides becoming lighter, and thus easier to take deeper into the wild. Hunters are smart, and let's face it, Bigfoot in 4K is worth big money. That video hasn't happened.
4. Science getting more toys to remotely observe and record critters in the wild going about their business.
5. DNA sampling from water sources, and other places have turned up nothing.
6. Cheap-but-quality security cameras have become commonplace both for homes, and property surveillance.
7. Research into many of the classic Bigfoot legends yielded many facts left out of the pop-culture versions told on the internet today.
I grew up in Monterey County. I was an avid hiker. Big Sur, Little Sur, Garapata, The Pinnacles, Fort Ord, the Carmel Valley, Point Lobos, and locations in the Santa Cruz mountains hold many fantastic memories for me. I never saw anything on a hike that I'd call paranormal, and I've seen many wonderful, and amazing sights. Monterey County does not have a Bigfoot legend. We have tales of lost treasure, secret Native American gold-mines (even though our Native Americans ran around naked, built simple grass/stick structures, and had zero metallurgy skills), ghosts, and for a while in the 1930s we had a sea monster.
While I can't speak for Bigfoot, I can attest to how easy it is to vanish, and or remain unseen while in the woods. At least for a while. But while I've never seen a bear in the wild I have seen tracks. I've never seen a Mountain Lion, but I've followed their tracks, and their scat. Never seen a wild pig, but have passed through areas where they have rutted. I can also testify that your eyes can and will play tricks on you in the woods. Trees, branches, brush, deadfall, and grasses all conspire to give your peripheral vision a sideshow.
Bottom Line: If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you won't see one.
1. Commercial development of regions where Mr. Foot is supposed to roam. Logging/mining roads, and their respective operations. Expansion of vacation homes branching out from multiple small towns.
2. Cell phone cameras.
3. Trail cameras and other hunting technologies like tree-stands, stands, and hides becoming lighter, and thus easier to take deeper into the wild. Hunters are smart, and let's face it, Bigfoot in 4K is worth big money. That video hasn't happened.
4. Science getting more toys to remotely observe and record critters in the wild going about their business.
5. DNA sampling from water sources, and other places have turned up nothing.
6. Cheap-but-quality security cameras have become commonplace both for homes, and property surveillance.
7. Research into many of the classic Bigfoot legends yielded many facts left out of the pop-culture versions told on the internet today.
I grew up in Monterey County. I was an avid hiker. Big Sur, Little Sur, Garapata, The Pinnacles, Fort Ord, the Carmel Valley, Point Lobos, and locations in the Santa Cruz mountains hold many fantastic memories for me. I never saw anything on a hike that I'd call paranormal, and I've seen many wonderful, and amazing sights. Monterey County does not have a Bigfoot legend. We have tales of lost treasure, secret Native American gold-mines (even though our Native Americans ran around naked, built simple grass/stick structures, and had zero metallurgy skills), ghosts, and for a while in the 1930s we had a sea monster.
While I can't speak for Bigfoot, I can attest to how easy it is to vanish, and or remain unseen while in the woods. At least for a while. But while I've never seen a bear in the wild I have seen tracks. I've never seen a Mountain Lion, but I've followed their tracks, and their scat. Never seen a wild pig, but have passed through areas where they have rutted. I can also testify that your eyes can and will play tricks on you in the woods. Trees, branches, brush, deadfall, and grasses all conspire to give your peripheral vision a sideshow.
Bottom Line: If you don't believe in Bigfoot, you won't see one.
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Some of the many reasons why I'm very, very skeptical that the Big Guy really exist and thank you Axxman
-
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Even though Bigfoot might exist, I just don't think it's probable...
BTW (at the time), I had a partner who actually wrote the webpage* (I merely edited it), and she's the one you quoted above (and not me).
Good catch though and thank you for reading our page anyway.
*ETA: check out the copyright notice at the top of the webpage.
-
Last edited:
AmyStrange
Master Poster
I'd be curious to know why Heironimus' anecdotal evidence (his confession) has more credibility than all the other anecdotal evidence about Bigfoot.
-
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Because Heironimus's evidence has been corroborated by other sources. And because it has plausibility - more plausibility than the idea that a breeding population of large hominids has remained hidden for decades.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Sure, which is why you have to go beyond this one line of evidence.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
The Patterson-Gimlin film is only one line of proposed evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. We cannot draw conclusions from it alone - we have to take into account all of the other failures to demonstrate Bigfoot's existence.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
Agreed, but shouldn't we also be skeptical of anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs?
ETA: I think that's what Sanderson meant by the quote I provided earlier:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14231729#post14231729
-
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
In this particular case there is no anecdotal evidence that confirms our beliefs, because the null hypothesis here has to be that no such creature exists. We don't - we can't - have positive evidence that it doesn't exist. That doesn't make sense. The default stance is that it does not exist until evidence shows that it does.
Also, take another look at what I already said about Sanderson's quote. We do not deny its existence in spite of evidence that it does, the way a climate denier does. We assume that it doesn't exist unless we have good evidence that it does. This is the rational, logical, skeptical approach.
AmyStrange
Master Poster
That's actually a good example of how to use a negative to prove a negative, but despite that, I will concede that you do have a point.
What exactly got you to this point anyway? Did you always believe Bigfoot didn't exist, or did you reluctantly come to that conclusion because of the lack of any substantial proof?
Just curious.
-
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
When you linked to the site, you said you had done some research. If it wasn't your research perhaps you should have said so.
Why? Is quoting from the site a breach of copyright?