Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[Jodie]

Now that was not my experience, Parn, I gathered that was why there is so much paranoia and lack of trust amongst the ones who research, or pretend to do research, or whatever label you want to apply to what it is that they do.

 

[Jodie]

Yes.. but you believe in BF !

I believe there is no evidence to support the existence of Sasquatch. Until I have evidence, I can't believe in it.

 

[DennyT]

This argument by the way is just as baseless as the argument from people that say Bigfoot must exist because there are so many legends and sightings from people. It's an argument based on probabilities stated as fact.

This statement is just as factual: If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

I'm not saying Bigfoot exists, but let's keep both sides of the argument honest and call B.S. when warranted, shall we? Group-think and self-backpatting of skeptics can be just as foolish and dangerous as it is for the believers - just ask Galileo.

You are sadly mistaken, musket. In several ways. In the first place, the poster doesn't say that his personal experience proves anything. But his statement about no one killing one is very relevant. People have been around in that area for hundreds of years, and we have no evidence that anyone has killed a bigfoot, young or old, with gun, disease, vehicle, bow and arrow, trap, spear, club or poison. That is a powerful statistical argument.

The appeal to probability fallacy consists of saying that because something could happen, that it DID or WILL happen. It generally refers to events which have a LOW probability. That is what makes it a fallacy. By your reasoning, no decisions or actions could be rationally made on the basis of probability. In reality, we all make most of our rational decisions based on probability.

Finally, no one has said that there are a lot of hoaxers wearing gorilla suits, and they certainly haven't been around in any numbers for very long. We also know that humans exist and that they have the ability to control their hoaxing environment to a great extent. Humans take great precautions when they hoax; so the cumulative likelihood of killing a hoaxer is clearly small.

You can attempt a false equivalency, but your critical thinking is weak.

 

[musketsatdawn]

Hows this for honest? It has been proven that humans fake "bigfoot evidence." It has never been proven that bigfoot exists,

Non sequitur alert. I pointed a flaw in the argument by jhunter Bigfoot did not exist. Pointing out his flawed logic does not mean I believe in Bigfoot and your rant was tangential.

 

[AttorneyTom]

Dear Tom,

I agree, there’s a lot of evidence of excellent intellectual reasoning here. There's lots of evidence of poor intellectual reasoning as well. I’ve enjoyed reading the threads.

I'm not from "an organization".

By suggesting I am from “an organization”. I suspect you think I am a ‘footer. I'm not a believer in Bigfoot and have never said as much.

It does not mean that I think the logic that was applied by jhunter was sound. Just because I also do not believe in Bigfoot does not mean that I should ignore his dubious logic.

Having read a couple hundred posts so far, I suspect that had someone used similar logic to argue the point that Bigfoot does exist, they would have had their ass handed to them. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt it. Let’s review it again:
“…with as much hunting as occurs out there, someone would have shot one accidentally long before now if they existed.” Why MUST that argument be true? Please explain.

There are 1,000 valid arguments why Bigfoot does not exist. The above is not one of them. Yes, it increases the possibility that they do not exist, but it is one piece of evidence and circumstantial at best. On its own, that statement does not prove that they do not exist. That is my point. I hope that is clear.

Group think happens when logic like jhunter’s goes unchallenged because it agrees with your line of thinking. I saw no one challenging his logic. You did not challenge his logic. I thought someone should.

When is this kind of behaviour dangerous? When a person who points out a flaw in the popular argument is associated the unpopular opinion, just because they didn’t like the logic being used against it.

[Quote from you]
“Finally, your reply that it is as baseless as those that see them everywhere just goes to prove JH's point.. Dead BF!” [End Quote]

I’m sorry, your sentence above doesn’t make sense to me. It’s as if I am reading half a sentence. Or half an argument. I THINK you are trying to reiterate that because there are no recorded killings of Bigfoot in Washington State, Bigfoot cannot exist. That argument is no better than some of the ‘footers arguments I have seen on here. If I misinterpreted what you were getting at, please clarify.

Is there any animal in the continent of North America that we have not seen dead ? Other than your friend "BF" ? So, You come from where and what is your interest in this topic ?

 

[Jodie]

So what is the likely outcome of someone wearing a gorilla suit in the forest's of the PNW during hunting season?

 

[GT/CS]

Musket,
Why don't you address Parn's point instead of running around it?

 

[musketsatdawn]

You are sadly mistaken, musket. In several ways. In the first place, the poster doesn't say that his personal experience proves anything.

You can attempt a false equivalency, but your critical thinking is weak.

Actually Parn, he kinda did:

"with as much hunting as occurs out there, someone would have shot one accidentally long before now if they existed."

 

[GT/CS]

So what is the likely outcome of someone wearing a gorilla suit in the forest's of the PNW during hunting season?

It's commonly called "Darwinism" and it's the best thing that can happen to the human race.

 

[Jodie]

LOLOL....so since no one has been found shot dead in a gorilla suit in the forests of the PNW is it safe to assume that everyone was smart enough not to wear one out in the woods during hunting season ?

( I'm just practicing the technical argument folks, humor me please)

 

[musketsatdawn]

Is there any animal in the continent of North America that we have not seen dead ? Other than your friend "BF" ? So, You come from where and what is your interest in this topic ?

You're doing exactly what the footers do...ignoring the points in my argument and deflecting with a loose accusation of sorts.

If you must know, I come from a suburb of Toronto and as far ass I can tell, we have no Bigfoots running around.

My interest is really none of your business. But I have nothing to hide about it in any case. My interest is purely that. Interest. I've been interested in Bigfoot, UFOs, History, Nature, and many many other subjects since I was a kid.

I don't think my pointing out flawed logic on the part of a skeptic should subject me to an inquisition. Apparently you do. And you seem defensive... or is it offensive about it. I can't decide, perhaps both. But dude, I'm just here to see what people are thinking about it. I have no hidden agenda. Do you?

 

[GT/CS]

LOLOL....so since no one has been found shot dead in a gorilla suit in the forests of the PNW is it safe to assume that everyone was smart enough not to wear one out in the woods during hunting season ?

( I'm just practicing the technical argument folks, humor me please)

I was born and raised in North Central Washington and I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to wear any sort of fur suit in the woods during hunting season.

 

[AttorneyTom]

It would not be an accident.

 

[GT/CS]

You're doing exactly what the footers do...ignoring the points in my argument and deflecting with a loose accusation of sorts.

If you must know, I come from a suburb of Toronto and as far ass I can tell, we have no Bigfoots running around.

My interest is really none of your business. But I have nothing to hide about it in any case. My interest is purely that. Interest. I've been interested in Bigfoot, UFOs, History, Nature, and many many other subjects since I was a kid.

I don't think my pointing out flawed logic on the part of a skeptic should subject me to an inquisition. Apparently you do. And you seem defensive... or is it offensive about it. I can't decide, perhaps both. But dude, I'm just here to see what people are thinking about it. I have no hidden agenda. Do you?

Great typo!!!!

 

[AttorneyTom]

Is there any animal in the continent of North America that we have not seen dead ? Other than your friend "BF" ? So, You come from where and what is your interest in this topic ?

Just asking ? It is obvous to me you are a someone who believes in non proven mammals. Why are you on this Thread ?

 

[Jodie]

I was born and raised in North Central Washington and I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to wear any sort of fur suit in the woods during hunting season.

Well me either, but when I point out the obvious (critical thinking skills IMO) I get slaughtered for it by RandMan even though I think his points are inane.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

If all of these hoaxers existed, someone would have accidentally shot one long before now if they existed.

Not necessarily. I think most hoaxers don't go out with bigfoot costumes and the ones that do don't tend to spend a whole lot of time in them. So the only time anyone would be shooting at them is in the brief period of time where one of them is very rarely dressed up in a costume. Even if a hunter saw some hoaxers, the odds of them looking like something legal to shoot are really slim. Plus, there probably haven't really been many suit wearing hoaxers until after the PG film was shot. And still, how many are there now? 5 or 10 a year? How many of those are even done out in a location where hunting is legal vs private property? How many would obviously be a hoax to someone that stumbled across the scene? How many people who are accidentally shot in America each year would admit to getting shot while pretending to be bigfoot?

So compare that to an animal that is always legal to shoot, 24/7 365 days a year for the past couple thousand years over the expanse of the entire continent. And sometimes this creature tries to break into houses. The opportunity to kill one arrises occasionally (if footers are to be believed) when the beast delivers itself to someone's doorstep.

Even with very very rough guesses for the odds, being shot for hoaxing looks infinitely less likely than being shot for being bigfoot. At least that's how I break things down.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Jerry Merritt's dog bit Roger Patterson in the ass when he was trying to hoax Jerry at his house one night. It's in Greg Long's book.

I'm sure there's more stories like that but this is the best one because it's Patterson. It's not getting shot, but getting busted.

 

[musketsatdawn]

Just asking ? It is obvous to me you are a someone who believes in non proven mammals. Why are you on this Thread ?

How is it obvious? Please explain.

I am on this thread because I find Bigfoot interesting. For the record, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN BIGFOOT. I have an INTEREST in Bigfoot. I also have an interest in Greek Mythology, yet I do not think Zeus sits ready to smote someone with a lightning bold if I pray hard enough.

I simply did not believe that jhunter’s statement met the high standard for factual statements that I see elsewhere on the thread – primarily directed towards the ‘footers – to go unchallenged. That seemed unfair to me. That is/was my agenda, such as it was.

Subsequently, skeptics sought to undermine my entire point with seemingly little consideration as to whether some or all of it had merit. Further, I was assumed to be a ‘footer.

To me, the lack of challenge to jhunter's statement had elements of group think. I will define it broadly as a way of thinking where the striving for group cohesiveness against a currently held belief overrides a fair assessment of an alternative view – in this case, my view being that jhunter’s statement did not meet the same standard of proof being expected of ‘footers. The subsequent reaction from some folks here has served to reinforce that observation in my opinion.

I do not have an organizational or hidden agenda here Tom. I am not a believer in Bigfoot. I just pointed out what I perceived to be an inconsistency.

 

[musketsatdawn]

You can attempt a false equivalency, but your critical thinking is weak.

From jhunter:
“I grew up in Eastern Washington, outside of Spokane. No one I knew ever saw a Bigfoot. More than that, with as much hunting as occurs out there, someone would have shot one accidentally long before now if they existed.”

1. “…someone would have shot one… before now if they existed” I do not agree that jhunter’s statement is a certainty, or meets the high bar that seems to have been set for statements suggesting Bigfoot’s existence.

2. I’m not convinced his statement is even statistically probable. I agree it is possible. I agree it is at least as likely, perhaps significantly more likely vs as an accidental hoaxer shooting. That does not convince me that it is statistically probable enough to consider it proof in and of itself. That’s all I’m saying here.

From Parn: “the poster doesn't say that his personal experience proves anything.”

3. I would submit his statement is coming from personal experience and reads like a statement of certainty more than it does a straw man.

My main point was this: I think if a ‘footer had made a similarly strong statement with existence in mind, I have little doubt many jumping on my statement now would have pounced on that argument. And yet, none did. It seemed fair to point that out. Apparently not.

“You can attempt a false equivalency, but your critical thinking is weak.” Yes, you are correct. They’re not equivalent statements. They analogous. I should have written it as such. Both have flawed logic. You managed to see the tree and miss the forest.