Merged Bigfoot follies

[Chocolate Chip]

When woos say things like this about skeptics you all get your panties in a bunch.

Sorry, I don't get bunched up panties. It would just hurt way too much.

 

[DavoMan]

When woos say things like this about skeptics you all get your panties in a bunch. When you say it, it's supposed to be humor.

Pray tell just what an "unemployed looking" person looks like, and what's wrong with being unemployed? The implication is . . .?
Oh, wait, I know: all BF hunters/investigators/'beleivers' are dorky looking unemployed rednecks.

Of course.

Hey I said it wasn't very skeptical of me.
Besides, its a gross generalisation which might make the occasional person smirk when thinking back to some clip they saw of a 'serius' bigfoot hunter in the wild somewhere who obviusly can keep a 8 hour a day job and hunt in the forrests and sleep and do the shopping.

And unemployed people rule. I'm one of em. So I rule.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

When woos say things like this about skeptics you all get your panties in a bunch. When you say it, it's supposed to be humor.

Pray tell just what an "unemployed looking" person looks like, and what's wrong with being unemployed? The implication is . . .?
Oh, wait, I know: all BF hunters/investigators/'beleivers' are dorky looking unemployed rednecks.

Of course.

Well…

I don’t know anyone on this board who generalizes that much. With one or two exceptions. …

 

[LAL]

Man I've been searching for hours. Can someone please post a URL to this video clip? Its killing me seeing so much text about it but no link.

This one works:

http://www.acurrentaffair.com/promo.php?eid=44

I've been here five minutes and already I can see most of you haven't been doing your homework on the "Bigfoot phenomenon".
For starters, Borody's "research center" is his home. He might have wanted to leave said home to follow up. Even the Current Affair team seems to have found some evidence in the form of tracks, hair and a possible feeding area according to a follow-up news story.
Stay tuned.

Here's this on "Voldemort":

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/beckjord.html

Does anyone take him seriously?

 

[turtle]

Sorry, I don't get bunched up panties. It would just hurt way too much.

I should have qualified that with some skeptics. Not all.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Well of course there were tracks, there was probably someone walking around over there. Tracks are too easy to fake, so in my opinion they usually are very poor evidence.

Possible feeding area? What does that mean? I would think the whole great outdoors would be a possible feeding area for bigfoot.

Hair. Well, finding some hair is good. Lots of bigfoot researchers find hair. Finding hair with intact DNA that can be sequenced and determined to belong to an unknown primate would be better. That has never happened. Not that it can't, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Why do I think that nothing whatsoever will come of this .. no bigfoot, no scat, no hair, no tracks of any value, just blurry video and a the word of a few self-proclaimed experts. And yet, no bigfoot.

--lengthy rant about unemployment and its place in a bigfoot debate deleted then replaced--

Turtle, I assume you are either unemployed or a bigfoot hunter. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and I can only assume that you are just a really sensitive person. But could anyone care to explain why what an unemployed person or redneck looks like has to do with whether this video is really bigfoot or not?

Frankly, I consider it somewhat insulting to my intelligence to listen to a self proclaimed woo try to sidetrack the debate with PCness instead of explaining why he does or does not think the video is real, or at least make any comment on it. Those tactics don't fly here, my friend. Typical tactic; you can't discuss or debate in a reasoned way? Just start the ad hominems. In this case, it's implying that someone is a jerk and therefore doesn't have any reason to discuss whether bigfoot is real or not simply because they made a wisecrack about the unemployed. Sorry, not fooling me.

 

[LAL]

This is the story. It refers to the size of the tracks as "abnormal size". Of course, they could be the tracks of the 8' relative of Bobby Clarke's refered to in the blog. Rivers are still frozen in April in Manitoba. Maybe the Cree have a fondness for wading in them at dawn.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/05/14/1039268-sun.html

No, tracks that are good enough to fool experts aren't easy to fake.
Hairs have been analyzed for DNA but the ones from the Skookum Cast were found to be too close to human to rule out contamination.

Fahrenbach stated in 1999:

"I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."

 

[turtle]

Turtle, I assume you are either unemployed or a bigfoot hunter. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance and I can only assume that you are just a really sensitive person. But could anyone care to explain why what an unemployed person or redneck looks like has to do with whether this video is really bigfoot or not?

Why do you assume I'm unemployed? Or, a bigfoot hunter?
Odd.
You're the one who made the comment about the unemployed and 'rednecks' ...

Frankly, I consider it somewhat insulting to my intelligence to listen to a self proclaimed woo try to sidetrack the debate with PCness instead of explaining why he does or does not think the video is real, or at least make any comment on it.

You're the one sidetracking things, what with you going on about this.

I can't comment on the video, since I didn't see it. Now that'd be pretty silly of me wouldn't it; commenting on the validity or lack of, something I haven't seen?

Those tactics don't fly here, my friend.

I'm not your friend, chum.

Typical tactic; you can't discuss or debate in a reasoned way? Just start the ad hominems.

LOL, who's using "ad hominems." I'm not the one who made comments about red necks and the unemployed.

In this case, it's implying that someone is a jerk and therefore doesn't have any reason to discuss whether bigfoot is real or not simply because they made a wisecrack about the unemployed. Sorry, not fooling me.

I didn't imply a thing, I merely pointed out that some skeptics can make generalizations and ad hominems but seemingly woos can't. Sheesh, talk about sensitive.

I think BF is real. Satisfied?

 

[Red Siegfried]

Why do you assume I'm unemployed? Or, a bigfoot hunter?
Odd.
You're the one who made the comment about the unemployed and 'rednecks' ...

[/B]

You're the one sidetracking things, what with you going on about this.

I can't comment on the video, since I didn't see it. Now that'd be pretty silly of me wouldn't it; commenting on the validity or lack of, something I haven't seen?

[/B]
I'm not your friend, chum.

[/B]

LOL, who's using "ad hominems." I'm not the one who made comments about red necks and the unemployed.



I didn't imply a thing, I merely pointed out that some skeptics can make generalizations and ad hominems but seemingly woos can't. Sheesh, talk about sensitive.

I think BF is real. Satisfied? [/B]

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult, but I wasn't the one who first brought up rednecks or the unemployed. That was DavoMan who first brought that up. You responded somewhat indignently (is that a word? ) and then I said that I thought you were trying to change the subject by taking offense at his remarks when he was really just cracking wise. I felt is was important to point out that you were not arguing to the topic. Sorry if my style offended.

Like I said, I preemptively apologized for thinking you might be unemployed or a bigfoot hunter. I never said or even implied that you were a redneck. What's wrong with being a redneck anyway? Not that being unemployed is necessarily shameful, but if you would have been a bigfoot hunter, yes, shame on you for being silly. And yes, you are trying to pull an ad hominem here by implying that Davoman is some kind of bigot or something against the unemployed. Maybe you're right, point is, it was off topic. But you're not a bigfoot hunter so forget it. This whole area of conversation has nothing to do with bigfoot anyway, so I'll drop it if you will.

I would LIKE to believe in bigfoot because I think it's a really interesting idea that does not require any supernatural circumstances for it to be real. But I don't BELIEVE, generally speaking. What I KNOW tells me that bigfoot is probably not real.

1. No good hair evidence.
2. Photographic evidence isn't very good either.
3. As for whether or not "experts" are "fooled" by fake footprints, that's a complicated subject. It is easy, if you know how, to make large footprints with dermal ridges and altered anatomy. All you need is a foot, some foam latex, some naptha or alcohol and a small amount of questionalble knowledge about bigfoot anatomy. Oh, wait, no one has any verifyable knowledge about bigfoot anatomy because we can't say for certain whether any of our existing evidence is real or not! So some of the footprints are real because they match with other footprints that are real, right? That's called circular reasoning.

As for whether or not you're my friend, that's up to you, but don't be so touchy. I guess you are kind of a sensitive person, and that's not a bad thing. But I wouldn't get mad at someone who called me a friend unless I felt they were trying to do me some kind of harm, and trust me, I'm not trying to harm you. I'm more interested in showing you that although nothing is 100% certain yet, the evidence for the existence of bigfoot is pretty shoddy.

No, I'm not satisfied that you think bigfoot is real. What would really satisfy me is if you would THINK about the evidence at hand. You might realize that it's extremely weak. I'm not saying you're not a smart person, I'm just saying I think you're wrong.

And you can call me chum anytime.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Throwing out a bone here. New monkey discovered:

New Monkey Species Is Found In Tanzania


Now, it's much easier for me to swallow a new monkey being discovered for two reasons:

1. It's true. No doubt about it. We have specimens.
2. We know monkeys exist and the idea of a new species of monkey is far more likely than a totally new category of primate, especially such a big one that would have problems staying hidden.

I just find cryptozoology extremely interesting. Riddled with BS, but interesting nonetheless. Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut. It's just that I won't take the squirrel's word for it until he shows it to me. Not a photo, not some nut residue, not legends about a nut. Give me the nut, or at least some real nut DNA.

 

[Hitch]

I remember a TV show I saw 30 years or so ago about Bigfoot. It had a guy who'd made a pair of big fake weighted feet that he strapped to his boots and ran around the woods. The footprints weren't all that convincing because the feet were solid and inflexible.

Later a "Bigfoot expert" was brought to the area to see the footprints. He proclaimed them real and the fact that they looked odd because the foot didn't flex was characteristic of the "Bigfoot gait."

To a Bigfoot believer, there is no bad evidence.

Edit: (in reply to Red Siegfried)
Lets hope (for the discovering scientist's sake) that the highland mangabey doesn't go the way of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/pressrel/05-05.htm

 

[Red Siegfried]

I remember a TV show I saw 30 years or so ago about Bigfoot. It had a guy who'd made a pair of big fake weighted feet that he strapped to his boots and ran around the woods. The footprints weren't all that convincing because the feet were solid and inflexible.

Later a "Bigfoot expert" was brought to the area to see the footprints. He proclaimed them real and the fact that they looked odd because the foot didn't flex was characteristic of the "Bigfoot gait."

To a Bigfoot believer, there is no bad evidence.

At the risk of making this sound like a mutual admiration society, well said.

 

[DavoMan]

It was actually me that made the crack about bigfoot hunters being unemployed. And besides - who really cares. Bigfoot is unemployed & everyone likes him.

 

[LAL]

I remember a TV show I saw 30 years or so ago about Bigfoot. It had a guy who'd made a pair of big fake weighted feet that he strapped to his boots and ran around the woods. The footprints weren't all that convincing because the feet were solid and inflexible.

Later a "Bigfoot expert" was brought to the area to see the footprints. He proclaimed them real and the fact that they looked odd because the foot didn't flex was characteristic of the "Bigfoot gait."

To a Bigfoot believer, there is no bad evidence.

Of course, you don't remember who this "Bigfoot expert" was?

Thirty years ago Dr. Meldrum hadn't examined tracks in situ on two occasions. He was impressed with the midtarsal bend.
Note the half tracks:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Jimmy Chilcutt found half a dozen of the casts in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges, which are neither human nor ape.

Then there's the opinion of the country's foremost primate anatomist that the Skookum imprint was made by an unidentified North American hominid primate, and this after 30 years of scepticism. (Dr. Daris Swindler was usually the obligatory sceptical scientist in the TV shows.)

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the "true unbelievers" to accept that there's any evidence at all.

 

[Red Siegfried]

It was actually me that made the crack about bigfoot hunters being unemployed. And besides - who really cares. Bigfoot is unemployed & everyone likes him.

I like bigfoot, hence the avatar. If he's real, he's my favorite animal. Like I said, I wish he WAS real. It would be really cool to discover an unknown primate. We could learn so much. But as far as I know so far, he isn't real, so we'd be better off spending our time researching other known primates.

I'll definitely let you all know if someone ever comes up with some evidence that makes me reconsider that stance. I think that would be limited to a live specimen, identifiable remains, or identifiable DNA. Film, video and footprints are just too easy to fake these days. And testimony by itself certainly isn't enough.

Brings up a question that I'm sure has been asked many times before. What would (or already does) constitute enough evidence for you to consider it proof of the existence of bigfoot?

Feel free to chime in, anyone.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Edit: (in reply to Red Siegfried)
Lets hope (for the discovering scientist's sake) that the highland mangabey doesn't go the way of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/pressrel/05-05.htm [/B]

Good point you make there. We should be careful in accepting reports like this as true automatically. Mistakes can and have been made before.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Of course, you don't remember who this "Bigfoot expert" was?

Thirty years ago Dr. Meldrum hadn't examined tracks in situ on two occasions. He was impressed with the midtarsal bend.
Note the half tracks:

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Jimmy Chilcutt found half a dozen of the casts in Meldrum's collection to be compelling because of the dermal ridges, which are neither human nor ape.

Then there's the opinion of the country's foremost primate anatomist that the Skookum imprint was made by an unidentified North American hominid primate, and this after 30 years of scepticism. (Dr. Daris Swindler was usually the obligatory sceptical scientist in the TV shows.)

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of the "true unbelievers" to accept that there's any evidence at all.

Yeah, there is a reluctance on my part to accept this evidence, but only because I'm not knowledgable about what human and ape dermal ridges look like, not because I'm cynical. He may be right, and obviously he found his own line of demarcation where the evidence was strong enough for him to constitute proof.

Could you refer us to Swindler's opinion somewhere. A link or a reference to a journal or TV show or whatever? I'd like to see that. Same thing with Mr. Chilcut if you could, please.

Dermal ridges can, and have been faked. But to create a set of dermal ridges that aren't duplicates of either human or ape is probably much more difficult, but it can't be impossible. I'm sure it could be done, but I'm also sure it would take a lot of time, detailed work and detailed knowledge of dermal ridges. I'm not saying they're fake, I just don't know enough about the example you cite to make a judgement there.

As for me, I'll take DNA, a live specimen or identifiable remains.

 

[turtle]

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult, but I wasn't the one who first brought up rednecks or the unemployed. That was DavoMan who first brought that up.

Okay. You posted re: it though.

You responded somewhat indignently (is that a word? ) and then I said that I thought you were trying to change the subject by taking offense at his remarks when he was really just cracking wise. I felt is was important to point out that you were not arguing to the topic. Sorry if my style offended.

Wasn't your style (so much.) Was what you said.

Like I said, I preemptively apologized for thinking you might be unemployed or a bigfoot hunter. I never said or even implied that you were a redneck. What's wrong with being a redneck anyway?

If by redneck you mean a rifle toting beer guzzling women beating child breeding Bush lovin' new country music fan then yeah, lot wrong with being a redneck.

But I wouldn't dare generalize or resort to stereotypes.

Besides, you have it backwards. I was responding to the statement made by someone else that all BF hunters are rednecks or unemployed, as if there's something wrong with that. I was suggesting that there's nothing wrong with either.

Not that being unemployed is necessarily shameful, but if you would have been a bigfoot hunter, yes, shame on you for being silly.

Being unemployed is not shameful, but that's another thread entirely. As far as "bigfoot hunter" if you mean literally, as in hunting to kill the thing, oh yes, I quite agree. Shameful indeed.

If you mean as in: searching for BF, then I don't care if you think it's "silly" or not. (by the way, love that logic: Skeptic: "well, we don't have a BF. No evidence exists to support that theory. But hey, don't go looking for it or anything. That's silly."

And yes, you are trying to pull an ad hominem here by implying that Davoman is some kind of bigot or something against the unemployed.

I ain't pulling nothing, and I told you that once before. I'll tell you that again. Are you in his head by the way? I responded to a statement made by someone. You wanna fight. (as usual, there's always a few in here that just can't wait to "attack the woo.") (oops, sorry. Don't want to play the "victim" card.) Wow. How[.i]many times have we been down this road?

Maybe you're right, point is, it was off topic. But you're not a bigfoot hunter so forget it. This whole area of conversation has nothing to do with bigfoot anyway, so I'll drop it if you will.

Hey, YOU started it. Sheesh.

I would LIKE to believe in bigfoot because I think it's a really interesting idea that does not require any supernatural circumstances for it to be real. But I don't BELIEVE, generally speaking. What I KNOW tells me that bigfoot is probably not real.

1. No good hair evidence.

Disagree.

2. Photographic evidence isn't very good either.

Most of it's crap. A bit is compelling.

3. As for whether or not "experts" are "fooled" by fake footprints, that's a complicated subject. It is easy, if you know how, to make large footprints with dermal ridges and altered anatomy. All you need is a foot, some foam latex, some naptha or alcohol and a small amount of questionalble knowledge about bigfoot anatomy. Oh, wait, no one has any verifyable knowledge about bigfoot anatomy because we can't say for certain whether any of our existing evidence is real or not! So some of the footprints are real because they match with other footprints that are real, right? That's called circular reasoning.

Yes, real easy. I start off my morning making at least a dozen or so before breakfast.

As for whether or not you're my friend, that's up to you, but don't be so touchy.

I'm not touchy. I don't take crap. Even if I were "touchy" so what? Don't tell people what to do, how's that? I don't know you, so I'm not your "friend."
(who's "touchy?")

I guess you are kind of a sensitive person, and that's not a bad thing.

Honestly, really, I'm not trying to be rude here but I don't care if anyone here is my "friend" or think it's not a "bad thing" etc. Just try to be civil and stick to the topics.

But I wouldn't get mad at someone who called me a friend unless I felt they were trying to do me some kind of harm, and trust me, I'm not trying to harm you. I'm more interested in showing you that although nothing is 100% certain yet, the evidence for the existence of bigfoot is pretty shoddy.

then see above....

No, I'm not satisfied that you think bigfoot is real.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere and I hope the other nonsense is over with.

Why aren't you "satisfied" that I think BF is real? Are you calling me a liar?
You can be unsatisfied that BF exists. You can believe quite strongly it doesn't exist. You can think people who say they think it exists are wacked out of their minds. But you CAN'T say that you're "not satisfied" that I think it's real.

What would really satisfy me is if you would THINK about the evidence at hand.

I've been studying BF for decades, and I've thought quite a bit about the "evidence at hand."

You might realize that it's extremely weak.

Then again, I might not.

I'm not saying you're not a smart person, I'm just saying I think you're wrong.

Fine. Not at all unsurprising in a skeptic forum, lol.

 

[LAL]

Yeah, there is a reluctance on my part to accept this evidence, but only because I'm not knowledgable about what human and ape dermal ridges look like, not because I'm cynical. He may be right, and obviously he found his own line of demarcation where the evidence was strong enough for him to constitute proof.

Could you refer us to Swindler's opinion somewhere. A link or a reference to a journal or TV show or whatever? I'd like to see that. Same thing with Mr. Chilcut if you could, please.

Dermal ridges can, and have been faked. But to create a set of dermal ridges that aren't duplicates of either human or ape is probably much more difficult, but it can't be impossible. I'm sure it could be done, but I'm also sure it would take a lot of time, detailed work and detailed knowledge of dermal ridges. I'm not saying they're fake, I just don't know enough about the example you cite to make a judgement there.

As for me, I'll take DNA, a live specimen or identifiable remains.

Both Dr. Swindler and Jimmy Chilcutt can be seen on Sasquatch: Legend Comes to Life available here:

http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp

Chilcutt stakes his considerable reputation on it. (Of course, that could be an actor in a Jimmy Chilcutt suit, I suppose.)

Here's NG on it:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

This is from a Denver Post (5 January 2003) story which is no longer coming up for me:

"Daris Swindler, for example, is not the typical Bigfoot believer.

When he retired in 1991 after more than 30 years at the University of Washington, Swindler was an acclaimed expert in the arcane study of fossilized primate teeth.

His book, An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy, went through several printings and was among the standard references in the field.

So it comes as a surprise to some of his peers that Swindler believes that the Skookum Cast, discovered by amateur Bigfoot researchers in 2000, is a genuine record of a hairy giant that sat down by a mudhole to eat some fruit.

"Daris said that?" asked Russell Ciochon, a prominent paleoanthropologist and professor at the University of Iowa. "He's an important figure. But I still don't think Bigfoot exists in any form." "

Ironically, Ciochon appears in the documentary with his reconstruction of Gigantopithecus blacki.

Fill me in on what dermal ridges have been faked by whom and when.

 

[DavoMan]

Man look how much arguing I started with just one statement about rednecks & unemployed people.
Edit: But as far as evidence for bigfoot goes - I would concider a giant growling bigfoot in a cage proof of bigfoot.