Bigfoot in Malaysia

[Huh-What?]

Big news in Malaysia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_fe_st/malaysia_bigfoot

According to the story they;

...photographed what appeared to be footprints measuring up to 17 inches, said Lim Teong Kheng, the chairman of the Malaysian Nature Society in Johor.

He said brown hair reeking of body odor was also reportedly retrieved nearby, and a broken tree branch at the site appeared to indicate the creatures were some 10 feet tall.

So from this evidence it was deduced that bigfoot exists. Apparently this wasn't the first sighting in Endau Rompin National Park, but what happened to the others?

Lim welcomed the investigation by the national park saying "Bigfoot" sightings have been reported for decades in the area but never taken seriously for lack of evidence.

So smelly hair, a broken branch high in a tree, and a large foot imprint isn't lack of evidence?

I am always surprised that these 400lb+ creatures don't leave large piles of excrement.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Well, I have no doubt in my mind that Bigfoot exists in Malaysia now. That's all the evidence you need, according to the bigfooties on this board. They got footprints, hair and a report. That's plenty of evidence, plenty. Hell, that's DEFINITIVE PROOF!

Now LAL can post and call us all ignorant for discarding this "evidence."

(Indignantly) "I have never called you ignorant! You're just closed minded simpletons who won't open your eyes to the proof that Bigfoot is real. And even though I won't go out on a limb and say it's real with 100% certainty, I'll spend 15 pages on a board defending it. Pardon me while I dig up some more quotes from "Bigfoot Specialists" to defend the fact that there is no proof, only some very poor evidence, and tell everyone over and over again how we will find Bigfoot any day now." (wanders off to watch Harry and The Hendersons. Again.)

 

[Ryokan]

Well, even Bigfoots need a vacation, and Malaysia is pretty nice this time of year.

 

[Huntster]

...Now LAL can post and call us all ignorant for discarding this "evidence."....

I'm quicker than Lu today.

Can I be the one to call you ignorant?

...That's all the evidence you need, according to the bigfooties on this board. They got footprints, hair and a report. That's plenty of evidence, plenty. Hell, that's DEFINITIVE PROOF!...

Are you willing to concede that you're exaggerating? There is no proof. There's evidence. Call it little, call it weak, call it unconfirmed, but it is evidence.

And you're clearly discarding it because you've pre-judged the phenomenon. That may not be because you're ignorant (although the root of the word is "ignore", which you seem to be doing), but it's damned sure prejudiced.

I wouldn't call that very smart.

...I'll spend 15 pages on a board defending it...

I'll see Lu's 15 pages, and raise her 100...............

 

[Red Siegfried]

I'm quicker than Lu today.

Can I be the one to call you ignorant?



Are you willing to concede that you're exaggerating? There is no proof. There's evidence. Call it little, call it weak, call it unconfirmed, but it is evidence.

And you're clearly discarding it because you've pre-judged the phenomenon. That may not be because you're ignorant (although the root of the word is "ignore", which you seem to be doing), but it's damned sure prejudiced.

I wouldn't call that very smart.



I'll see Lu's 15 pages, and raise her 100...............

I'm not going to debate with you because that's pointless. Enjoy your new thread.

 

[Huntster]

I'm not going to debate with you because that's pointless.....

Okay.

...Enjoy your new thread.

Thank you!

 

[Red Siegfried]

Okay.



Thank you!

I'm sorry. Let me restate that. It wouldn't be pointless to debate with you if you actually understood the basic premises of debate, scientific method and what evidence and proof are and how they work. Also not lying and frequently resorting to logical fallacies would be good.

Debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric. Only repeatable, verifiable evidence does that.

There is no good evidence for Bigfoot. End of story. Think otherwise if you like but don't try to tell me up is down.

As for working on getting some good evidence, go right ahead. I think you're wasting your time but if I'm wrong ... well, I'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

 

[Huntster]

...Also not lying and frequently resorting to logical fallacies would be good.....

Yes, that's always good.

Agreeing is good; no?

...Debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric...

Never?

In accordance with your understanding "basic premises of debate, scientific method and what evidence and proof are and how they work", do you have any evidence or proof that "debates never establish what the truth is; they're simply the exercise of rhetoric"?

...Only repeatable, verifiable evidence does that....

You mean like footprints repeatedly left by heavy creatures, in the shape of a human foot but much larger, that have been seen, photographed, casted, analyzed, and found to occasionally show dermal signatures in a different way than those found in human footprints, well recorded in North America for nearly two centuries, and verified by scientists?

...Think otherwise if you like but don't try to tell me up is down....

Ummm; you don't want to debate vertical direction?

Can I assume you also don't want to "exercise rhetoric" regarding sasquatchery, either?

...As for working on getting some good evidence, go right ahead. I think you're wasting your time but if I'm wrong ... well, I'll cross that bridge when we come to it...

I'm on the other side. Nice bridge.

You're not even in sight, Mr. Siegfried.

Give me a call when you see the bridge.

 

[Hitch]

I miss Erik Beckjord.

He was stupid and offensive, but at least he was entertaining.

 

[William Parcher]

Malaysia is just another location where humans can engage their tendency to mythologize the idea that big humanlike creatures are lurking. This idea has sympathizers and apologists that will go on to mention that these cratures are possible, regardless of any unliklihood.

The dichotomy of belief is the same in Malaysia as it is anywhere else. Bigfoot is justifiable anywhere that anyone says that it has been "documented". In all cases, the believer habitually shifts the burden of proof upon the skeptic. Traditionally, the burden of proof resides with the claimant of something extraordinary. An undiscovered gigantic bipedal ape ought to be tacitly extraordinary. But it is not explicitly so. Because the believers in such creatures firmly think that our collective abilities to detect such animals is inherently faulty. Since Victorian folks doubted the gorilla and then it was confirmed... we should all be sympathetic to the notion that doubts of Bigfoot in Malaysia will be followed by confirmation of Bigfoot in Malaysia.

What seems obvious to me, is that "believers" are required to give true credibility to any witness as well as to any kind of proposed evidence. IOW, the believer concludes (or simply believes) that at least some of the eyewitness accounts, footprints, hair and feces must be an indication that there really is a Bigfoot species in Malaysia. Even if only 1 out of 1000 bits of evidence is accurate for Bigfoot, then you have 1 bit of accurate evidence for an undescribed gigantic bipedal ape.

It is no accident that the scientific community cannot do very much after being presented with such a situation.

It is my opinion that Bigfooters prey upon the conventions of science itself to argue against science and scientifically-minded skeptics. They cannot produce a Bigfoot, but they will consume all hours of the day to point out that science cannot show that Bigfoot does not exist. The Bigfooters champion eyewitnesses from any walk-of-life and say that common human perception is not only revealing that the giant apes exist, but that science itself can only rely on the common human perceptions of scientists. This is a "he said" vs. "he said" issue. The Bigfooters seem to not pay much mind to the fact that many many decades have passed without any confirmation of a large bipedal ape inhabiting this planet other than Homo sapiens sapiens.

Instead of having a belief that is held strongly tentative to the production of real proof, these Bigfooters hinge their belief on the ability of science and skeptics to disprove the existence of such an animal. How do they think the world can react and show things, based upon the criteria that they offer to demonstrate that this creature is a myth or a mistake?

The skepticism of Bigfoot offers an inherent falsifiability. Produce a Bigfoot creature (or unrefutable evidence of such) and the negative hypothesis of Bigfoot is instantly refuted.

The belief of Bigfoot offers no inherent falsifiability. There is nothing that anyone can do or say to show that Bigfoot does not exist.... no matter how obvious it would seem to anyone. If only one person on earth claimed that they recently saw a giant wild ape in a Washington forest, nobody could really prove that they didn't really see such an animal.

 

[William Parcher]

I miss Erik Beckjord.

He was stupid and offensive, but at least he was entertaining.

He also has the best argumentative tactic of Bigfoot belief unfalsifiability. Claiming that Bigfoot is paranormal and has shape-shifting abilities allows Beckjord to give powerful counter-arguments to both Bigfoot skeptics and to Bigfoot believers who are skeptical that this ape is not straight out of science fiction.

Beckjord has recently suggested that Bigfoot uses wormholes in space to arrive in locations that it arrives in.

Why the hell not? Einsteinian relativity hands us wormholes on a platter. Earthly witnesses hand us Bigfoot encounters on a platter. Exobiology hands us the liklihood of extraterrestrial life on a platter. A simple connecting-of-the-dots puts a giant skywalking stinky monkey right there in a Pacific Northwest forest. He could show up in Manhatten, but he like the solitude, views and smells that only a near-coastal Western American forest offers. Besides, Bigfoot likes to wrench the livers right out of deer as a snack item. He would be frustrated trying to appease his deer liver fetish in Central Park.

Beckjord is the king of kings. He knows that Bigfooters and JREF skeptics are both wrong. It must be heady to think that you know something that the rest of earthly humanity doesn't know.

Imagine a Bigfoot zooming through space, on her way to the refreshing coolness of Bluff Creek. She has one of those high-tech navigation devices installed in her galaxy cruiser. "Turn left at Spacefold 3622." She knows that this is alerting her to the approaching wormhole that will lead her to that fresh pinetree smell, clean rushing water and the melodic honking of ravens. She hears the ravens but cannot see them clearly. She wonders if this is an undescribed species. Will she return to her Bigfoot planet and tell her fellow Bigfoots that she witnessed a cryptid. Will they begin to call her a Cryptozoobigfootologist? She loses sleep thinking about what this all means and what will be thought about her back home. The mind of this Bigfoot is spinning...spinning... spinning. Her dreams are dominated by her loving mother. Mama Bigfoot. She fondly remembers how her mother's stride always included the horizontal foot lift as part of the warm and fuzzy compliant gait. "Mama never failed to bring me warm deer livers when I was feeling down. She had a Groucho walk with her feet always level to the horizon during her stride... but it was that steamy deer liver in her outstretched hand that haunts my loving memories."

How terrible, unimaginative and irresponsible would it be to think that Bigfoot wouldn't want to visit Malaysia? To think otherwise just would show that skepticism is the Scrooge of the galaxy. Bah, humbug!

All weird creatures, ghosts, spirits, hairy hominoids, lake monsters, Big Bird, phantom kangaroos, the Dover Demon, the giant Kangamoto bat, Black Panthers, out of place cougars, Large Black Dogs in the UK, and shapeshifters of all kinds, come to and from this Universe/dimension via wormholes, from other parallel universes/dimensions, and different beings may come from different parallel universes/dimensions.

 

[Huntster]

...Since Victorian folks doubted the gorilla and then it was confirmed... we should all be sympathetic to the notion that doubts of Bigfoot in Malaysia will be followed by confirmation of Bigfoot in Malaysia....

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.

And, frankly, if DuChaillu hadn't brought back that carcass, and reading what I read on this forum from lovers and worshippers of science, I have no doubt that today's skeptics would still be arguing that gorillas don't exist.

But behold what science has wrought since 1861 with regard to gorillas! They sure are smart now, aren't they? Intelligent mo-fos. They know it all.

But they don't know squat sh!t about sasquatches, do they? Deny they exist, don't they? The lesson of 144 years ago has been long forgotten, hasn't it?

Some folks never learn. Even the ones who claim to be the smartest around.

It's funny, really.

 

[Hitch]

How many high-resolution digital cameras were there 2500 years ago? How many British Scientists visited Africa between 480 BC and 1861?

One Clear Photograph...

 

[Huh-What?]

Hitch is right. If bigfoot did exist then modern technology should be able to capture him on some type of medium at least once.

Frankly IMOP, Huntster, your arguments seem thin as if you are just playing devil's advocate. Arguing for arguing's sake.

 

[Huntster]

How many high-resolution digital cameras were there 2500 years ago?...

None.

...How many British Scientists visited Africa between 480 BC and 1861?...

None (like I noted above).

How many British scientists in the woods searching for sasquatches?

None.

How many British scientists have a negative opinion on sasquatches today?

All of them.

How many British scientists will be in on the circus after some "hick" brings them a carcass?

All of them.

...One Clear Photograph...

Bullspit. You've got way more than that now.

 

[Huntster]

...If bigfoot did exist then modern technology should be able to capture him on some type of medium at least once....QUOTE]

You call that a scientific statement?

And, I point out again, the PG film has been presented. It has not been proven a hoax. The radical skeptic simply rejects it, because their demands aren't for valid evidence; they want proof, and they want it delivered.

...Frankly IMOP, Huntster, your arguments seem thin as if you are just playing devil's advocate. Arguing for arguing's sake.

I am arguing for the sake of a very unique creature that I believe is in danger of extinction (at least in some regions), and in frustration at an industry/ideology that should be proactive in discovery, but is actually a burden of discovery.

 

[gmanontario]

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.

And, frankly, if DuChaillu hadn't brought back that carcass, and reading what I read on this forum from lovers and worshippers of science, I have no doubt that today's skeptics would still be arguing that gorillas don't exist.

But behold what science has wrought since 1861 with regard to gorillas! They sure are smart now, aren't they? Intelligent mo-fos. They know it all.

But they don't know squat sh!t about sasquatches, do they? Deny they exist, don't they? The lesson of 144 years ago has been long forgotten, hasn't it?

Some folks never learn. Even the ones who claim to be the smartest around.

It's funny, really.

I for one thought that is the way science works. Be a skeptic until you and/or someone provides irrefutable evidence. IMHO, irrefutable evidence for bigfoot is still not there, so I canot believe it exists. When someone provides compelling evidence, I'll change my mind.

 

[Correa Neto]

Let's be accurate:

The first known record of a non-African regarding gorillas was from Hanno, a Carthaginian explorer, around 480 BC.

British scientists accepted the existence of gorillas when DuChaillu (not a scientist) delivered a carcass to them in 1861 (American skeptics still didn't accept it, and only after subsequent explorers, the Royal Geographic Society, and Harper and Brothers worked for years to show the idiots the obvious).

Now, let's see; 480 BC to 1861 is a scant 2,341 years.
...rant snipped...

Ah, the old common argument that "gorillas were not found"... Invalid argument, I´m afraid. A variation on the rants about mainstream science.

480 BC there was nothing that called science as we know it noways. The number of experts has increased a lot as well as the avaliable technology, methodology and knoweledge database. Not only in raw numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Now someone will say "there were no major improvments on tracking" or some variation. And it will be another erroneous argument, for thare have been (IR and low-light imaging, remote cameras, microphones, etc.).

Bigfeet researchers, defendents, etc. should stop wasting time with pesudonihilistic rants. What about a critical examination on the avaliable data, since reliable data is missing? But be warned that it will show how weak the avaliable data is.

 

[Hitch]

Bullspit. You've got way more than that now.

Where? The P/G film?

Erik Beckjord had better proof than that.

 

[Huntster]

I for one thought that is the way science works. Be a skeptic until you and/or someone provides irrefutable evidence....

And that is the precise problem. There are too many people thinking that same thing.

Analyzing evidence from a skeptical point of view is clearly proper.

Analyzing evidence from a prejudiced point of view, with the goal of denial rather than seeking the truth, is quite different.

Not analyzing the evidence at all, and parroting the opinions of others who are denying the validity of evidence purely to bolster the position they prematurely took at first, is classic human folly. This phenomenon has occurred in the past, is occurring today, and will continue.

...IMHO, irrefutable evidence for bigfoot is still not there, so I canot believe it exists....

Irrefutable evidence (also known as proof) is not currently available.

Compelling evidence is.

...When someone provides compelling evidence, I'll change my mind..

When someone provides proof you'll change your mind. You'll have no choice then, unless your human pride is so great as to deny the obvious.

The rest of science will join you at that time.

So who needs them now?