Bigfoot DNA

[Gilbert Syndrome]

and how do you know this? (you might want to review the list of fallacies)



No. In fact, I'm a skeptic.

Science isn't about spending your days attempting to quash every Bigfoot report under the sun, its about trying to validate information via proper research, i'd hardly claim that sifting through ridiculous Bigfoot reports was in any way "proper research."

The fact of the matter is, itss 2012 and Bigfoot is still about as plausible as a Milli Vanilli reunion with Vanilla Ice as the supporting act.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

@GS. Yup, but your posts come across as you claiming it to be a fact, rather than your opinion.

Your posts make it seem as though you're trying to validate Bigfoot simply because we can't properly refute every single eyewitness report.

I'm saying that I believe every single Bigfoot report is nonsense, and would you look at that? I was right.

 

[Jodie]

The only story in the UK that I can say matches the modern Bigfoot legend is of the Tarbock Ape, but this story is most certainly just modern folklore.

Liverpool is rife with Werewolf stories, especially from the 1700-1800's. Speke is a district in Liverpool which seems to have a rich history in Werewolf-lore.

Mind you, i've yet to see any ape's in Tarbock or any wolves in Speke!

Werewolf Stories?? Those are pretty much non existent here yet we have plenty of wolves, go figure? I wonder what people are seeing, some kind of wild dog maybe?

 

[gigantor]

I haven't , but right on schedule my neighbor had 6 yellow M&M's, an unbroken bird's egg, and a beer bottle cap left on her deck a few nights ago. The mystery continues and ironically once I put up my game cam on my brother's deck, the activity moved.

There has to be somebody hoaxing you guys... they probably think it's really funny too.

 

[gigantor]

I'm saying that I believe every single Bigfoot report is nonsense

believe being the operative word.

Anyway, good talking with you Jodie, I'm going to the pool. Catch you later. GS, do review the list of fallacies, it'll help your arguments in the future.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Werewolf Stories?? Those are pretty much non existent here yet we have plenty of wolves, go figure? I wonder what people are seeing, some kind of wild dog maybe?

Its something i've been interested in for a long time, maybe too long... I like to try and investigate why people claim to see the things that they do, its what keeps me interested in Bigfoot, without trying to come across as being arrogant, i'm interested in the psychology of the believers.

Liverpool has a rich history of folklore, as does the rest of Great Britain, believe me, Werewolves are practically believable compared to other local stories I could mention!

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

believe being the operative word.

Anyway, good talking with you Jodie, I'm going to the pool. Catch you later. GS, do review the list of fallacies, it'll help your arguments in the future.

I fail to see where you're going with this....

I don't need any help with my arguments, haha, but cheers.

Basically, you're passing yourself off as being a skeptic but then you're attempting to give credence to unsubstanciated stories by making out that we can't disregard all of them.

I hope this isn't your reason for opening an account. If so, I imagine you spend a lot of time being blown away by John Edward... not literally, of course.

 

[Jodie]

Its something i've been interested in for a long time, maybe too long... I like to try and investigate why people claim to see the things that they do, its what keeps me interested in Bigfoot, without trying to come across as being arrogant, i'm interested in the psychology of the believers.

Liverpool has a rich history of folklore, as does the rest of Great Britain, believe me, Werewolves are practically believable compared to other local stories I could mention!

That's it,psychology, it's exactly the thing that keeps me interested in the topic. Why bigfoot as an explanation for what you see and experience? It calls into play a willingness to go through self examination if you are a proponent or witness, which is the reason I came here to begin with. But there is a wealth of interesting topics besides BF on the JREF, I really am enjoying it.

 

[GT/CS]

Gigantor,
It's not the skeptic's role to disprove bigfoot sightings. I'm sure you've heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so proving the validity of a bigfoot sighting is the role of the person submitting the report, and/or the person publishing the report, and/or those who believe the report.

The skeptic's only role is to offer plausible alternatives, or just say, "BS".

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

So, would you have us believe that if you prove one case to be false, that all other cases should be automatically discarded also?

This is an enormous straw man, which a skeptic would never use.

I clearly asked for OntarioSquatch's BEST evidence. Omitting that requirement of BEST evidence is intellectually dishonest. If the BEST "evidence" does not even qualify as evidence then you have zero evidence.

Yes you can discard OntarioSasquatch's lesser evidence when his/her best evidence is already a zero. In anticipation of you trying to confuse the issue, we are talking about no other person than OntarioSasquatch. We are not talking about you or anyone else. This poster claimed knowledge of credible sightings. I have demanded presenting ONE: the BEST one. The most credible one. In the opinion of OntarioSasquatch.

This poster is refusing to do it, and I ask here again OntarioSasquatch - give us your most credible one - so we can get started examining the truth about knowledge of credible sightings.

By passing the buck to us and saying WE are in charge of determining what is credible, then there have been zero credible sightings presented. None of the ones above she presented are credible.

Welcome, despite peddling your strawman introduction here, and false accusations against others. Knock off the ad-homs. It is a rule violation here.

 

[Jodie]

I sympathize with you Gigantor, it's hard to rationalize the cognitive dissonance involved in following the topic. You either believe in the evidence or you don't, you either accept what logic tells you or you don't.

There is no in between. Either bigfoot exists or it doesn't. When you say you accept the possibility of bigfoot existing then you are leaving logic behind since the probability is low. In that case, the skeptical claim dissolves under scrutiny.

 

[GT/CS]

Jodie,
Not to get totally off-topic but I think the problem with most (not all) bigfoot believers, especially Americans, is they don't research bigfoot and don't have the knowledge we have. Bigfoot really isn't important to them so all they do is read the headlines and have no desire or need to dig any deeper. IMO that's why over a quarter of Americans believe bigfoot exists.

If we forced them to sit down and absorb all the data I think that number would be cut in half.

I'm over 50 years old and until a few years ago if asked if I believed bigfoot may exist, yes or no, I would have had to say yes. It wasn't until I saw an ad for an upcoming program that claimed it had proof of bigfoot, which turned out to be the PGF, that I realized since the PGF is still the best evidence for bigfoot then bigfoot can't exist, especially since Patty is obviously a bloke in a suit. But just to be sure I Googled 'Bigfoot' and checked out all the sites including this one.
Slam dunk - bigfoot doesn't exist!

But if I hadn't taken the initiative to do the research I'd probably still believe bigfoot may be real.

 

[RayG]

hey Ray,

So, would you have us believe that if you prove one case to be false, that all other cases should be automatically discarded also?

No, I believe each case should be looked at with some actual scrutiny to try and determine whether it is worthy of mentioning with other reports. If basic facts are ignored or distorted, then how can I accept the rest of the report as valid? Even someone skeptical like you would have to admit there are problems with that 'credible' report. We keep hearing there are 'thousands' of these reports, and that sounds impressive. However, when we start to investigate and examine those reports individually, we see that most are factually inaccurate, lack credibility, or contain illogical statements. Why aren't these reports weeded out by the majority of proponents? Why are they continually used as evidence?

And I only commented on the very first one OS presented. I didn't even read the rest of them, though he doesn't seem to be interested in weeding out inaccurate and illogical reports before accepting them as 'credible'. And really, who in the hell investigated that report? Obviously they invested no time at all in actually investigating, they just accepted whatever the witness said.

It seems that OS back-tracked a bit and admits none of the reports he posted are credible when looked at individually. But we're supposed to believe that if we pile enough non-credible reports together their sum equates to credibility?

I have to ask gigantor... Do YOU believe the report I commented on was a 'credible' report? Do YOU believe Cochrane was the 'nearest town'? Do YOU believe they managed to view the subject for a 10 second time-frame? Do YOU believe there was enough light for him to give all the details that he did? What convinces YOU that he saw a bigfoot?

And how do we know some anonymous person submitting a report to the BFRO is actually a police officer? Did the investigator speak with him in person at the police station, or did he merely conduct an interview by phone? Did the investigator visit the location to try to recreate the report? Was the investigator not capable of taking the time to ensure the statements presented were factual? It took me less than 10 minutes to show the statement that they "were about 100 miles away from the nearest town" is utter rubbish.

Is it any wonder I've become skeptical of bigfoot and the reports associated with it?

RayG

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

But we're supposed to believe that if we pile enough non-credible reports together their sum equates to credibility?

...It took me less than 10 minutes to show the statement that they "were about 100 miles away from the nearest town" is utter rubbish...

...Is it any wonder I've become skeptical of bigfoot and the reports associated with it..

RayG

Well written.

That's why you have to take responsibility for your own argument and put the best evidence you've got first. Don't wheel in your dump truck of rubbish and say there's a monkey in there.

The fact you can't stand behind a single one of them in the thousands they have in the database proves what they're worth. It proves the opposite of what you think, OS.

 

[xtifr]

Isn't the Chupacabra just some sort of wild canine? I'd buy that more than i'd buy into Bigfoot.

According to Wikipedia, Chupacabra^WP is most likely someone's confused memory of the monster from the movie Species, overblown into full-grown urban legend status. Mangy coyotes, though, seem to have been the main source for subsequent reports, so your "wild canine" is pretty much on the money.

Chupacabra is an excellent example of how people can trick themselves into believing they've seen the most ridiculous things, which, in turn, is an excellent reason for being skeptical of most eyewitness BF reports. It's also an excellent example of how something invented quite recently can pass off as an "old legend".

Jodie,
Not to get totally off-topic but I think the problem with most (not all) bigfoot believers, especially Americans, is they don't research bigfoot and don't have the knowledge we have. Bigfoot really isn't important to them so all they do is read the headlines and have no desire or need to dig any deeper. IMO that's why over a quarter ofAmericans believe bigfoot exists.

I think the highlighted point really bears emphasizing. Most people do not care whether BF exists or not, and therefore feel no reason to take a strong position one way or the other. It's as easy to say, "sure, there might be" as it is to say, "nah, I doubt it", especially if you have no particular reason to care.

I don't really mind the people who say, "sure, whatever". They may be insufficiently skeptical, but their lack of skepticism stems from a lack of interest in a not-very-interesting topic. What concerns me is the people who are so determined to believe, despite the lack of any credible evidence, and who feel compelled to try to convince others at all costs. These are the ones who fall prey to profiteering fraudsters, and unscrupulous con men. Which is why I keep emphasizing the "why do you care" question.

Guys, even the majority of those who do casually believe in bigfoot think you're crazy for caring so much! Dial it back, and try to gain a little perspective! Then maybe you can at least rejoin the group of reasonably sane people who may, vaguely, think that bigfoot exists, but don't insist on making public fools of themselves in defense of that not-strongly-held belief.

 

[Jodie]

Jodie,
Not to get totally off-topic but I think the problem with most (not all) bigfoot believers, especially Americans, is they don't research bigfoot and don't have the knowledge we have. Bigfoot really isn't important to them so all they do is read the headlines and have no desire or need to dig any deeper. IMO that's why over a quarter of Americans believe bigfoot exists.

If we forced them to sit down and absorb all the data I think that number would be cut in half.

Gigantor is very intelligent so really has no excuse. I'm not sure that bigfoot is truly the main draw for him IMO.

There are other motives for pursuing the topic such as acceptance and camaraderie.

My observation has been that those who feel most insecure within the group think tend to exhibit the most condescending behavior.

Those that have made peace with their stance, regardless of whether that is skepticism or belief, seem to not care so much what others think.

I imagine this has more to do with Gigantor's visit than any real interest in wanting to hear what any of you have to say about it.

 

[GT/CS]

Jodie,
I think we're talking about two different groups. I'm talking about the average person living in Anywhere, USA, and you seem to be talking about the believers, like the folks at the BFF.

Not that it's good or bad, just trying to make sure we're on the same page.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Guys, even the majority of those who do casually believe in bigfoot think you're crazy for caring so much! Dial it back, and try to gain a little perspective! Then maybe you can at least rejoin the group of reasonably sane people who may, vaguely, think that bigfoot exists,

Why do you care what we find interesting in our free time? You're crazy to care so much about it.

I find television offensive, except some stuff on the science channel. So I am on the internet instead of TV in my free time. You are being melodramatic about how much people "care". Average television use is over four hours a day. I'm not going to watch a single show today.

So when I have been on this thread four hours running you can say I care about as much as the average american cares about tv.

 

[Jodie]

Jodie,
I think we're talking about two different groups. I'm talking about the average person living in Anywhere, USA, and you seem to be talking about the believers, like the folks at the BFF.

Not that it's good or bad, just trying to make sure we're on the same page.

I'ld forgotten what I said and had to go back and read it, yeah we are talking about two different things, except I put Gigantor in one of those " I don't really care one way or the other" categories that you were talking about. Obviously he cares about something, I'm just not sure it's about bigfoot.

 

[xtifr]

Why do you care what we find interesting in our free time? You're crazy to care so much about it.

Not you--you're trying to help and educate people. I admire and respect that. Whether or not you're having fun at it. Even if you're just doing it because you enjoy watching very silly people flounder about and make fools of themselves (which, I admit, is what attracts me to these threads.)

My comment was aimed those who spend so much time and energy on the silly effort to prove bigfootsies really really really really do exist, and that we're all just big meanies for not taking their unsubstantiated word for it.

eta: honestly, Pilot, you're one of the people most responsible for converting me from merely strong doubter to active disbeliever. Don't stop what you're doing.