Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[bruto]

LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

An unidentifiable hair, a missed picture, an ambiguous footprint, or any other unverifiable result is worth exactly zero. For the purposes of scientific proof it should count as equal to no event at all. No matter how high you pile zeroes, they add up to zero. LAL somehow has come to the notion that bad evidence should be graded on a curve related to its frequency.

But I would contend the contrary, that the longer one goes with only unverifiable results, and the more such observations take place, the LESS worthy of any attention they should become. It's to be expected that a certain percentage of sightings of anything, even a real thing, will be imprecise and unverifiable. If one is seeking a new and undiscovered thing, it's reasonable to follow up any lead, even the most tenuous, in hope of finding something that can be verified, but the point is to find better evidence, not more of the same, and the longer one goes without realizing that hope, the less reasonable it becomes. To suggest that zero verifiability after decades of searching and tracking constitutes some kind of success is indeed folly.

I really do hope there turns out to be a bigfoot out there. I think it would be an interesting thing. But I don't think it's going to turn out to be true, and I think that even if it does turn out to be true, it will not be verified by the people now searching unless they come to some understanding of the way they have failed so far.

 

[Hitch]

Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

 

[Winterfrost]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html
It's official...Bison, not bigfoot.

At http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wsasq0728/BNStory/National/ they made note of something even more important, I think (my emphasis):

"We compared it to human samples and bison samples that we had here on hand," said Dr. Coltman.
He said the DNA sample was not fresh.

Which points to either:
a) a buffalo previously wandering through that area, and someone made an honest mistake in collecting it.
b) someone having a really good laugh.

While I do not know this for sure, I would be surprised if bison frequently roamed so close to the town. And if they did, I would imagine that the townspeople would probably have been more familiar with bison hair, and less likely to mistakenly collect it. This, in conjunction with the apparent footprint found on-scene has me leaning strongly toward option "b."

 

[Red Siegfried]

LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

Bingo.

Thank you for articulating what I was for some reason unable to express in my online and offline discussions about anything that requires evidence.

 

[Correa Neto]

Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

Sorry you are plain wrong, they did not eveolved from bisons. OK, those were the bad news. The good ones are that you are right, they are not primates!

Cutted-and-pasted from an earlier post of mine to LAL:

Here´s my cryptozoology “theory”: Bigfeet are part of a genus of marsupials that initially evolved in the Pliocene or before, in South America, and by convergent evolution, they looked quite like hominids, but were bigger to avoid predation. They became bipedal for the same reasons hominids became. When the Panama land bridge appeared, the original species expanded its habitats to North America, adapted to the condition there, becoming a new species. When the Bering Land bridge appeared, this species expanded its habitat to Northeastern Asia. The original species still lives, its the mapinguari.

Its an undebunkable theory!!!!

So, don´t you guys think my career on cryptozoology has a bright future?

 

[Metullus]

How about a bigfoot riding on a bison? Reduce the number of footprints in populated areas and save wear and tear on the old bunions.

 

[Winterfrost]

Sorry, a bit more from http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/28/sasquatchtesting0727.html that I felt was worth sharing:

Coltman said the hair not only came from a bison but was from a long-dead animal.

He said the DNA was highly degraded and of very low quality, indicating that it had either been exposed for a long time to moisture and sunlight, or came from a hide that had been tanned.

"This is not to say this could not have been stepped on by a sasquatch," joked a wildlife technician in the Yukon, Phillip Merchant.

 

[Hitch]

Bigfoot a marsupial? Oh come now -- I thought the only North American marsupials were opossum. There's no way to mistake an opossum for a Bigfoot. I'm sticking to my -- much more realistic -- bison theory.


Edit: Come to think of it, Pogo was an opossum, so... Nah. It's ridiculous.

 

[Correa Neto]

Ah, sir, but you seem to have overlooked some key evidences!
Opossums -marsupial mammals- have a "chemical weapon", a liquid with a horrible smell.

At many sighting reports, the witnesses stated that the animal had a terrible smell!!!

In my theory, its this smell that make dogs freeze and be scared of bigfeet. It was perfected by millenia of evolution, as a defese against terrible megafauna predators such as the saber-toothed-cats. Bigfeet size -and smell- are adaptations against these and other predators.

My cryptozologist carrer seems to be promissing!!!! Maybe I´ll even write a book and get some $$$!!!

 

[RayG]

Hmmmmmm...maybe I'm not being 'skeptical' enough, but isn't refuting a claim with facts far more effective than ridicule?

Two quotes immediately come to mind when I see a thread degrade in this manner:

"I have made a ceasless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." -- Baruch Spinoza

"If you can't answer a man's arguments all is not lost; you can still call him names." -- Elbert Hubbard

Getting back to the evidence, or the lack thereof, what are the chances of getting Dr. Henner Fahrenbach to pass along purported squatch hairs in his possession to Dr. David Coltman for identification purposes?
http://north.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=sasquatch-not-280720005&ref=rss

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

Hmmmmmm...maybe I'm not being 'skeptical' enough, but isn't refuting a claim with facts far more effective than ridicule?

When one has abandoned all reason, the height of folly lies with those who attempt to reason with them--Huntsman, 5 seconds ago.

 

[Hitch]

In over 1500 posts this thread and it's comanion have accomplished exactly nothing. No one here will ever change anyone's mind on this matter.

Until there's some evidence the skeptics will find scientifically valid.

Or the skeptics produce signed affadavits and documentary evidence from a hoaxer for every single shred of possible evidence past, present, and future for the Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Nothing will ever be settled in this forum. That anyone is still going back and forth on this is no sillier than the theories that Bigfoot is a bipedal bison, a super-evolved opossum, or a shapeshifting, teleporting alien.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:Originally posted by bruto
LAL thinks that anecdotal evidence should not be discounted if there's a sufficient quantity of it, and there, I think, lies the fatal problem of faith-driven efforts such as the search for bigfoot.

Bingo.

Thank you for articulating what I was for some reason unable to express in my online and offline discussions about anything that requires evidence.

Have you heard this one ?

" The plural of anecdote is not " data " ... "

 

[Bronze Dog]

The thread's beyond critical mass. Kind of hard to maintain composure when you've got someone making the same fallacious arguments over and over.

 

[Red Siegfried]

In over 1500 posts this thread and it's comanion have accomplished exactly nothing. No one here will ever change anyone's mind on this matter.

Until there's some evidence the skeptics will find scientifically valid.

Or the skeptics produce signed affadavits and documentary evidence from a hoaxer for every single shred of possible evidence past, present, and future for the Bigfoot enthusiasts.

Nothing will ever be settled in this forum. That anyone is still going back and forth on this is no sillier than the theories that Bigfoot is a bipedal bison, a super-evolved opossum, or a shapeshifting, teleporting alien.

Well, you're right there. But it is fun. And sometimes you learn something.

In the end, what it comes down to is that you can't convince someone of something using facts and evidence when their idea is based faith or belief.

If you want to convince a true believer, or change their mind, appeal to their emotions, not their logical mind.

If you want to convince a skeptic, appeal to logic, facts and evidence, not their emotions.

It is with this in mind that I propose we change the bigfoot believer's minds by convincing them that bigfoot is a hoax perpetuated by .... the Loch Ness Monster. Oh, and that Nessie was actually ... Jack The Ripper.

 

[LAL]

Caused by what ? Clown feet that are too tight ?



Seriously.. Explain to me how a Bigfoot would get bunions..

From shifting the weight due to the deformity.

I got one on the outside of each foot from three years on jobs where I had to be on my feet all the time. Bunions too. Overnight.


"The prominent bunnionettes on the lateral margin of the foot mark the positions of the calcaneocuboid and cuboideometatarsal joints, which are positioned more distal than in a human foot. This accords with the inferred position of the transverse tarsal joint and confirms the elongation of the heel segment. Furthermore, deformities and malalignments of the digits permit inferences about the positions of interphalangeal joints and relative toe lengths, as depicted in the reconstructed skeletal anatomy depicted below."

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

 

[LAL]

To LAL:

I think the majority of people here would agree with the existance of bigfoot with the discovery of remains unattributable to any other species. The amount of people that would be convinced would vary depending on the quality of the remains.

Conversely, what would it take for YOU to agree with the statement that there is no bigfoot? If it is not possible to think of a way, you should probably question yourself on how much of what you believe is based on faith and not reason.

If the incidents and evidence I find compelling could be debunked, and in over three decades several have not been (the others are newer than that), I would have no difficulty dismissing thousands of sightings as Unidentified Walking Objects and go back to complacently ignoring the whole phenomenon.

I might even say "Bosh".

 

[LAL]

Has anyone given any thought to the very real possibility that a sasquatch is in fact a species of bison adapted to bipedal locomotion for living in densely forested areas? Ha! You didn't think of that, did you?

I sure hope not.

 

[LAL]

Well, you're right there. But it is fun. And sometimes you learn something.

In the end, what it comes down to is that you can't convince someone of something using facts and evidence when their idea is based faith or belief.

If you want to convince a true believer, or change their mind, appeal to their emotions, not their logical mind.

So far all I've seen from sceptics are arguments from incredulity, cherry picking, distortions, implausible scenarios and demands for bodies, fossils and roadkill even from areas that don't have roads, fossils or even much in the way of remains of common animals. I haven't seen facts evidence from the sceptical side. Does this mean in this case the "true believers" are the sceptics?

How would I appeal to their emotions?

 

[LAL]

The thread's beyond critical mass. Kind of hard to maintain composure when you've got someone making the same fallacious arguments over and over.

You mean Bill? Don't be so hard on him. He doesn't know any better.