Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Resume]

However, a BF can occupy a space already 'searched' by people. I'll use a whitetail deer as an example. On hard ground, a deer will leave very indiscernable, if not invisible tracks. They will double back around on hunters and hikers, occupying the place they already were. Said hunters and hikers can go for miles displacing, but not seeing a single deer.

Usually one uses a well-defined game trail to set up a stand; let the game come to you and make tracking unnecessary.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I missed this comment the first time through. I like it. Are you the original author? I thought GT/CS was on to something with his example. It's probably a pretty common technique with lots of examples.

I coined the expression, yes. Soon to be forgotten.

I saw a parallel between bigfooter argumentative tactics and what I learned from the science of personality disorders.

A manipulative person learns how to feign anger, incredulity, or any other emotion to influence others.

So for example you state incredulously, with all the bluster you can summon, that faking tracks after work is impossible.

Later, you are arguing that an 800 lb. animal species can go a hundred years with thousands of sightings, tracks, fuzzy films, a pre-history of millenia in Native lore, blah blah blah...

Yet not one scintilla of bona-fide physical evidence. Let alone a specimen.

You explain this away with all the calm and poise of a surgeon discussing his work, exuding confidence. You have examples at the ready that upon inspection are specious. But you pull them out rapid-fire so you overwhelm the opposition. You ignore whatever protests are raised, practice selective memory and selective attention, etc.

I can go right down the list from the literature on manipulative personality disorders and the people I see arguing for bigfoot.


When you juxtaposition the two of these tactics in particular, the logical inconsistency is pretty stark. I did not know exactly what to call it.

So I called it "asserting the mundane impossible in order to proclaim the impossible mundane."

Nobody can make tracks after work so an undiscovered 800 lb. primate must have done it.


The way it is expressed is also sometimes a deceptive trick used in religion, the adherents of which also bear striking resemblance to the personality disordered insofar as their religious thinking.

It is expressed as a literary Chiasm. A chiasm is almost like poetry in that the symmetry is pleasing lyrically but not necessarily logically: ABBA

Have you ever heard a preacher say something that is silly upon analysis, but sounds good when it is uttered? Example: "Don't lose your faith, or your faith will lose you..."

I purposefully made that complete nonsense just to show the ABBA form is like a poem or music more than it is logic. This lyrical aspect can be used deceptively to advance a fallacious argument.

In this case though that isn't being done. They really do assert the mundane impossible in order to proclaim the impossible mundane.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Here's a link to a list of famous missing aircraft - of course some are over the ocean (an unlikely spot to find BF), but focus on the ones globally that occurred over land. (ETA link) http://www.check-six.com/lib/Famous_Missing/Famous_Missing_Aircraft.htm If ground coverage was as thorough to be considered 'combed over' then these land based missing aircraft should have been found. I mean, they're much larger than a BF and much more stationary. I will challenge you to explain why, if we are convinced BF doesn't exist b/c no remains have been found in combed over areas of the PNW, the same folks passed over reporting the wreckages?

I looked at your list.

100% of these were either over a water body or a glaciated area.

Case closed. You already admitted the ones over water are obviously not an analogy for the PNW being trodden by outdoorsmen.

The ones in the glaciers will come out in ten thousand years. They are also not examples. So you have not a single example from the link you provided.

By contrast shake has done some simple math to show you are dealing with millions of bigfoot carcasses.

It's amazing how vast the ice fields are up here, and it is easy to see why a military plane on the Ak/Canada border like #10 or number #19 which I know of personally would never be found. Some bad things happen over ice fields - you get evapotranspiration off the glaciers and you get clouds/mist settling in there from moisture pushed up from lower elevations.

So you get icing. It can happen so fast - talk about shock. One glance outside and you have blue wing struts. Next glance out and they're white, and are getting crusted over more by the second. You can't descend because you are over an ice field at elevation. The only way out of icing is to point the nose down and dive like hell.

But you can't. So you are going to crash. Nobody is ever going to find your crash site. You'll be snowed over in a matter of hours, and that's the end of you.

That crash in the Andes was pretty instructive. A commercial airliner went down and there were survivors. The survivors cannibalized the ones that died in the crash because nobody came. Sitting up there in the snow waiting. They were found because some of them descended and got help.

Otherwise they would have starved to death, been snowed over, and never be heard from again. A commercial airliner full of passengers.

Senator Begich, #19, I know one of his sons. Lost in the icefields. Harold Gillam - I was a good friend of his son, also a pilot by the same name. Harold died after trying to make it out injured. His passengers made it out but the plane will never be found.

The icefields are worse than the ocean in terms of ever being found. At least with the ocean the water isn't frozen. Encased in ice? Never.

It has happened to me twice. Both times in the Alaska Range. Over ice fields. I dove out sheer drop-offs both times. if I hadn't made it I'd be dead and nobody would have found me.

By contrast, I crashed on a Wood River gravel bar and the fricking State Troopers were calling my home before I got out myself. Within hours another plane had spotted the wreck. The troopers flew a chopper in and got my name off the registration. I was badly injured, trying to make it out in a raft.

That's the difference between crashing on land and crashing in an ice field.

 

[captain koolaid]

Tyrannosaurus rex is not extinct.

Word. Rexy dines on Bigfoots. They're like truffles to the big guy. He eats them whole, alive or dead. That's why there's no Sasquatch bodies.

The people who have conclusive evidence that it still survives are simply not making it available.

You're damn straight I'm not.

 

[The Shrike]

The ones in the glaciers will come out in ten thousand years. They are also not examples.

. . . And no piece of a bigfoot has ever melted out of a glacier. All manner of other Pleistocene wildlife has, but not bigfoot.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

0ops..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...........
........ Point in case - missing aircraft (a popular comeback to the point you've made)....
Anyway, there's my response. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The main fail of the " missing airplane " analogy, is the simple fact that airplanes have actually been confirmed to exist before they went missing...

P.S.

I see Mr. Parcher has alluded to this also ...

 

[DennyT]

More news from the great NC Bigfoot hunt: Bigfoot has a mantle!!

"The Bigfoot search group hired a local hunter from the Denton, NC area who is very familiar with the Uwharrie Mountains and Uwharrie National Forest. They pay him $20 an hour to guide them.
Fasten your seatbelt! The hunter said the group was very, very serious about this quest. They come upon a tree with claw marks and the group is certain it's “Bigfoot markings”. Then they come upon a dead deer that is half eaten. Oh, this is surely the work of Bigfoot! The hunter tells them it can’t be. The group asks why? You’ll love this one. The hunter points out that Bigfoot would have had to been carrying a hack saw with him, then points to the antlers having been sawed off. Oh gezzzzzz! We can assume this part will be edited out of the Animal Planet."

 

[xblade]

The main fail of the " missing airplane " analogy, is the simple fact that airplanes have actually been confirmed to exist before they went missing...

P.S.

I see Mr. Parcher has alluded to this also ...

Speaking of plane crashes, you know how they found the Steve Fosset crash site? A hiker stumbled upon his driver's license in pretty much middle of nowhere. It only took a year. Meanwhile, no one in the history of the planet has managed to stumble across any bigfoot remains.

 

[xblade]

However, a BF can occupy a space already 'searched' by people.

No it can't. Let's see if anyone can explain why.

 

[DennyT]

No Bigfoot sighting has ever been reported at the site of a lost airplane.

 

[William Parcher]

Agreed William. Conversely, you cannot prove they are true. Hence, such great discussions on the internet develop.

Discussions about the existence of Bigfoot are absurd like T rex. Neither one exists as a living animal.

I would be interested in applying the same equation you gave against a common wildlife animal - a bear for instance. Though I've no idea where the heck anyone would get any reliable data. I see the equation you gave would show that the probabilities increase over human population growth and time, but it doesn't shore up a 100% certainty by any means.

100% certainty is unnecessary. It's an absurd thing to ask for in this context. It makes a mockery of human intelligence and the real world itself. It says that people should not declare the T rex extinct. Actually it says you cannot declare any creature extinct including anything from the Pre-Cambrian.

Again, good points, but my initial comment was made to reel in the 'combed over' comment, I think I made the point that just b/c something is out there, doesn't mean it will be found.

If Bigfoot really existed we would have a body, body part or live specimen by now. It's been over 400 years now of people on this continent who would have the desire and means to procure a specimen in any form. It's quite ridiculous to expect intelligent people to go ahead and agree that such a creature exists undocumented in North America, let alone the United States.

Your way of reasoning in support of Bigfoot is bankrupt anywhere outside of the subculture of Bigfootery.

 

[davefoc]

Although not related to this thread, this is an account of my favorite lost airplane story.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/17/local/la-me-1017-then-20101017

The gist: In 1957 Air Force pilot went down in the High Sierra in a T-33. After 54 days of being lost in the wilderness he emerged 45 pounds lighter but alive. Although initially haled as something of a hero his airplane wasn't found in his lifetime and his story was eventually met with skepticism and ridicule.

Wreckage from his downed plane were found by some Boy Scouts on a King's Canyon outing in 1978. Parts of the plane was never found.

As to Cotter's idea about using the rate of recovery of fallen airplanes to get a feel for the possibility of bigfoot.

1. I don't think the argument that we know airplanes exist is relevant to his point.
2. His argument, as I understand it, is that airplanes go down in the wilderness and a percentage are never found. This suggests that things the size of a bigfoot could exist in the wilderness without detection.
3. Most of the rest of the discussion as to why the argument is flawed seem right to me.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

2. His argument, as I understand it, is that airplanes go down in the wilderness and a percentage are never found. This suggests that things the size of a bigfoot could exist in the wilderness without detection.

It suggests no such thing.

Airplanes do not leave tracks through the snow you can follow right up to the animal themselves. Airplanes don't feed, they don't need water, nor a place to live.

You don't see such a stupid argument being used by biologists discussing extinct species for example, do you?

Gosh Jethro, there might be thousands of wooly mammoths running around undiscovered because... there are some airplane wrecks that were never found.

 

[davefoc]

It suggests no such thing.

Airplanes do not leave tracks through the snow you can follow right up to the animal themselves. Airplanes don't feed, they don't need water, nor a place to live.

You don't see such a stupid argument being used by biologists discussing extinct species for example, do you?

Gosh Jethro, there might be thousands of wooly mammoths running around undiscovered because... there are some airplane wrecks that were never found.

You did notice my third comment didn't you?
\

. Most of the rest of the discussion as to why the argument is flawed seem right to me.

I did understand what he was trying to get at though. He's looking for some analog for Bigfoot that would allow us to quantitatively estimate the possibility that it exists and we haven't found it.

There are a lot of problems with the airplane analogy as you pointed out. How about this for a better analog, grizzly/polar bear hybrids? We went a long time without finding positive proof of one in the wild. I see a lot of problems with this analogy but it at least answers some of your objections to the downed airplane analogy.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You did notice my third comment didn't you?

Actually, no I didn't and thank you for pointing it out. [/quote]

I did understand what he was trying to get at though. He's looking for some analog for Bigfoot that would allow us to quantitatively estimate the possibility that it exists and we haven't found it.

We have bona-fide analogs: Trolls, Fairies, and other mythical beasts.

What they are looking for is exploitation of logical fallacies in order to pull off invalid conclusions.

There are a lot of problems with the airplane analogy as you pointed out. How about this for a better analog, grizzly/polar bear hybrids? We went a long time without finding positive proof of one in the wild. I see a lot of problems with this analogy but it at least answers some of your objections to the downed airplane analogy.

I almost never like analogies used in arguments, but most especially where none are needed.

When a person tells me there are thousands of these huge animals running around, we don't need analogies because it is plain on the face of it what the issues are.

Analogies in these cases are means of obscuring, not clarifying. At the very least by using them we're arguing about the appropriateness of the analogy instead of the plain straightforward facts about these alleged animals needing to eat, poop, avoid traffic and hunters, etc.


So no, I do not empathize with the "necessity" of finding analogies.

Cheers.

 

[Mike!]

Speaking of plane crashes, you know how they found the Steve Fosset crash site? A hiker stumbled upon his driver's license in pretty much middle of nowhere. It only took a year. Meanwhile, no one in the history of the planet has managed to stumble across any bigfoot remains.

And no one has found Bigfoots drivers license yet ether.

 

[davefoc]

...

We have bona-fide analogs: Trolls, Fairies, and other mythical beasts.

now, now

What they are looking for is exploitation of logical fallacies in order to pull off invalid conclusions.

Probably, but in this case I think Cotter is playing a sort of devil's advocate where he searches for the best possible argument to support the existence of bigfoot. He seems too open to having his ideas shot down to see him as looking for logical fallacies to pull off invalid conclusions, IMHO.

I almost never like analogies used in arguments, but most especially where none are needed.

When a person tells me there are thousands of these huge animals running around, we don't need analogies because it is plain on the face of it what the issues are.

Analogies in these cases are means of obscuring, not clarifying. At the very least by using them we're arguing about the appropriateness of the analogy instead of the plain straightforward facts about these alleged animals needing to eat, poop, avoid traffic and hunters, etc.


So no, I do not empathize with the "necessity" of finding analogies.

I agree with this but Cotter inspired me to take a shot at the game.

And now I've invented this grizzly/polar bear hybrid & bigfoot argument I sort of like it. Not in the sense that it's particularly probative with respect to the issue but more in the respect that somebody could run with it and we have could have a whole new generation of bigfoot threads (how many spins on the PGF are possible, maybe it's time for something new). Something like "Grizzly/Polar hybrid bear existence suggests possible existence of bigfoot", Or even "Grizzly/Polar bear hybrids explain bigfoot sightings".

 

[William Parcher]

Breaking News: Grizzly/Polar hybrid bear existence suggests that possible existence of bigfoot is highly unlikely. Why can we find an ultra rare bear but not Bigfoot? Because Bigfoot doesn't exist but ultra rare bears do exist.

Or would you like this?...

Breaking News: Grizzly/Polar hybrid bear existence suggests possible continued existence of Short-faced Bear (Arctodus simus).

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Probably, but in this case I think Cotter is playing a sort of devil's advocate where he searches for the best possible argument to support the existence of bigfoot.

That is an objectionable method. Because the best possible argument for a fallacy can still logically be the worst of all possible arguments.

It would be reasonable if this was a gnat-sized insect or something that inhabited a unique ecological niche isolated by mountains or seas from everything else. Now the possibility of an undocumented species is quite reasonable.

But you might as well be proposing a species of elephant running around the midwest corn fields. "Oh, but he's a short elephant, and he hides when he sees cameras..."

He seems too open to having his ideas shot down to see him as looking for logical fallacies to pull off invalid conclusions, IMHO.

Possibly. But isn't looking for the truth at the outset more constructive?

I agree with this but Cotter inspired me to take a shot at the game.

And now I've invented this grizzly/polar bear hybrid & bigfoot argument I sort of like it. Not in the sense that it's particularly probative with respect to the issue but more in the respect that somebody could run with it and we have could have a whole new generation of bigfoot threads (how many spins on the PGF are possible, maybe it's time for something new). Something like "Grizzly/Polar hybrid bear existence suggests possible existence of bigfoot", Or even "Grizzly/Polar bear hybrids explain bigfoot sightings".

Here's the proof of what I am saying: none of these analogies are useful, truthful, or probative. It's just a manipulative ploy to further an agenda.