Moderated Continuation: Latest Bigfoot "evidence" Part Two

[Cervelo]

This thread has become long and unwieldy, so I have closed the original and opened this continuation thread.

As always, the split point is arbitrary, and participants are welcome to quote from the previous thread into this one.

On a related note, please keep your participation on topic, civil and polite, and refrain from attacking the arguers. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By: Agatha

I love this stuff:

Skeptic: "What's a bigfoot?"
'Footer: "Oh, it's this magnificent boss of the woods - 8, 9 and sometimes 10' tall - weighing hundreds of pounds!"

Skeptic: "Wow, that sounds pretty cool! What do they eat?"
'Footer: "Well they run down elk and kill them with a swipe of their massive forearm! They leap to grab wild hogs and then smash them against tree trunks! But when they're really hungry they eat . . . half an apple."

That was my first run in with Sasfooty, she posted a pic of an apple that was nibbled on by Bigfoot according to her.
I responded with that's an apple that a horse has snacked on......it looked very similar to pic below just less bites. Anyone who's ever feed a horse an apple would immediately recognize it.

Needless to say our relationship was never the same

 

[The Shrike]

^There was also that dude in Canada who claimed that the bigfoots were leaving presents for him so he returned the favor or something. He posted photos of apples with what looked like mouse or flying squirrel bites taken out of them.

Don't forget the Skookum hokum including half-eaten fruit too.

 

[John Nowak]

Yes a single HD photo of Bigfoot would alone not represent absolute proof, but it would be a significant start. It would result in a lot of interest and provide many more resources to obtain additional pieces of evidence that, together with the HD photo, would be convincing indeed: scar, hair, etc.

I'm not a biologist, but I agree with you. In my opinion an HD photo alone is no more credible than the photographer. Trick photography has a long history.

However, it would be extraordinarily valuable, if only because once the location is identified, you have a place to find real, compelling evidence.

 

[Garrette]

What would count as evidence for Bigfoot?

If I might suggest stepping back a bit, perhaps you should ask what would count as evidence worth looking at in order to determine if it is evidence for Bigfoot.

The current state of Bigfoot evidence -- from the outside looking in -- is that a variety of people, very few of whom have any relevant expertise, employ a slew of non-rigorous methods in order to collect dubious evidence, avoid taking steps that serious researchers would take in order to collect serious evidence, and repeatedly withholding what is claimed to be convincing evidence. Even if someone in that group is holding legitimate, convincing evidence, it should come as no surprise that few will take the time to view it.

It is not incumbent upon the non-believers to look at and investigate in-depth every piece of evidence thrown at them, anymore than it is incumbent upon me to research every claim from every alleged psychic. Rather, if the psychic wishes to convince the scientific community, then the psychic must find and present its own irrefutable evidence; likewise, it is on the Bigfoot researcher to find and present its own evidence.

And for Bigfoot, it wouldn't have to be irrefutable to at least garner some respect, but it would have to be demonstrated that the person or people presenting the evidence have done their own due diligence. That means trying to disprove your own hypothesis before foisting it on someone else. It means actually setting our hair traps and actually recording track lines that are a mile and a half long. It means submitting saliva alleged to be in possession. It means stop running around like scouts at the campfire and calling it an expedition. It means stop running your research as a tourist trap and charging people to hear spooky stories in the woods. It also means admitting it when apparent pictures of bigfoot are shown to be simple cases of pareidolia.

Demonstrate that there is legitimate effort being put forth both in collecting evidence and in verifying it before presenting it. If you do that, the evidence won't even have to be perfect for the effort to be taken seriously.

So stop worrying about the actual evidence we will accept. Work on the method and the sincerity.

Until then, it's simply fish stories but with added indignation at not being believed.

 

[The Shrike]

In my opinion an HD photo alone is no more credible than the photographer.

Of course, but for something as important as accepting the veracity of an HD photo to demonstrate the existence of a new species, we can track the provenance. When bigfooters raise this issue ("a photo wouldn't do it, so why bother taking one?") they're focusing too heavily on the image itself and ignoring the provenance entirely.

examples:

1) Roger Patterson could've produced an extraordinary film that did not look like a guy in a lumpy suit sauntering across a sandbar and it still would not have garnered much attention from biologists who knew anything about Roger Patterson.

2) The "Myakka Ape" photos looked really cool at first. It took some discussion and analysis to demonstrate that it was a static figure. The real nail in its coffin, however, was the murky circumstance of its provenance - followed by the demonstration that it had been on exhibit in some museum I think in Wisconsin.

So analysis of putative photographic evidence is about a lot more than just "was this Photoshopped?"

 

[LTC8K6]

If you can get an HD photo, then you can get everything...

 

[HarryHenderson]

Harry, at what point did you decide to join the Bigfooter Basher cult here? I remember a time when you were almost a pleasant poster. For some time now I've noticed you have this deep seated resentment of Bigfooters. Did something drive you to this or were you always this way and just acting before?

At one point I thought you may even be an enlightened individual. But now I think you'd probably disagree that the Sun rises in the East. The Sun always rises in the East Harry.

Sure, I've returned insult and I shouldn't have. Sometimes weakness gets the best of me. I've turned the other cheek until both are red though. I'll try to do better.
Chris B.

My bashing days go back to the BFF¹. And it's usually just bashing the bashers of common sense. The common sense in this case being not your supposed "belief in Bigfoot", but your seeming belief that we would somehow buy your inane arguments. Virtually all of them so absurd that even you couldn't possibly believe in them. And that's how we know. You're playing a fully uniformed position, literally throwing us every junk pitch you've got in your arsenal, yet denying there's any game at all.

Ultimately it's honesty that's the matter. Or dishonesty. We don't BS you at all that I'm aware of, why exactly did you come here and attempt to do it to us? Grudge? Our enlightenment? To score points in a game? Duper's delight? Be honest.

 

[River]

I'm of the opinion that HD photographs won't convince anyone because some really life-like models of Bigfoot can be created in this day and age. No costume required.

If there are photos of an alleged bigfoot that are clear, or good video footage it wouldn't take very long to either collect a specimen or DNA evidence of its existence from the area the photo came from. The excuse trail ran out long ago for bigfooters. Technology caught up with the myth.

We can today "prove it doesnt exist" because all of the reports lead to one thing, and its not a bigfoot. Also, if it were to exist we would be able to find sign of it. Especially a creature depicted to be 8-10 feet tall. That would require quite the caloric intake. The problem is; real animals leave real DNA and real skeletons, and real images on trail cams. Real animals get shot and collected.

Ghosts, vampires, angels, faeries and bigfoots don't have that problem now do they?

Social constructs do not leave any evidence other than misidentified stuff, or fabricated evidence left by humans. (which is what we see with bigfoot! all of the "evidence" leads to that one specific thing! not a new primate)

Now here is the funny part. A lot of these guys are here to promote the bigfoot thing. They may work in the bigfoot business in some way or another (oh, i wouldnt be guessing right?) So their posts may or may not reflect their interests directly.

wink wink

So, we see avoidance, and other nice tactics used to misdirect and ignore selectively. This is not new to bigfooting either. Whenever it comes time to "show the goods" or "put up or shut up".... we know what happens right?

Yep.

So, that moment is avoided at all costs.

After a slight pause, all of that will be ignored and we will be talking about stick structures in NYC that had hairs on them, or some dents in the ground in KY where millions of people go hiking. All of this claimed evidence and long winded defending of the mythical beast comes down to?

*crickets*

Like always.

 

[Resume]

You asked:

What would count as evidence for Bigfoot?

There have been a number of replies, mostly concerning pieces parts/remains/leavings of said creature. None of these things have ever been brought forward in the 15,000 years humans have shared this continent with this alleged cryptid. Seems rather impossible.

Since you asked the question, would you be so kind as to address the answers, including mine?

Thanks.

 

[River]

OntarioSquatch

I have and none of it is considered as evidence here. I'd like to know what the "skeptics" would consider as evidence.

You've posted plenty of "evidence". Just none of it was evidence of bigfoot. Evidence of bigfoot requires proving a real bigfoot left it. Real bigfoots would leave evidence that is identifiable specifically to them, like other real animals do. The problem is, bigfooters often claim something is evidence of bigfoot when it is not.

I've never seen a bonafide piece of bigfoot evidence, and neither have you. There has to be a real bigfoot to make it. (mythological creatures do not leave evidence!) So, when you claim you have "evidence of bigfoot", show how it came from a real bigfoot. Prove it. Then you'll have "evidence of bigfoot" and not some crap that wishful thinking or special pleading made into bigfoot evidence in the eyes of the beholder.

Real evidence of bigfoot requires a real entity to leave it. (so yeah, there is none. exactly 0 evidence of bigfoot)

 

[RayG]

It is not incumbent upon the non-believers to look at and investigate in-depth every piece of evidence thrown at them...

And yet, many do.

RayG

 

[barehl]

I have a simple, mathematical comparison. Given that the comparison is so simple, I'm not expecting any replies from bigfoot enthusiasts.

I have a link to a picture of a pika.

These animals are very rare. It's estimated that there are only about 2,000 of them left. They are seen at the rate of about once per year. I assume that most people would agree that the picture of the pika is clear and in focus and that the animal can be easily identified as a pika.

So, let's do this with bigfoot. At what rate are bigfoot seen like this? Even if we were to ignore the obvious flaws and count the PG film as real that would still only be 1 sighting in 1967 and none since. So, that's 1 sighting in 47 years. Using the same ratio as pika, we have 2,000 / 47 = 43 animals.

For comparison.
The lowest population for the California Condor was 22 animals in 1987.
The lowest population for the Whooping Crane was 15 animals in 1941.

Both of these species would have gone extinct without intervention.

Of course, those who are actually familiar with statistics know that you can't actually find the likelihood just be simple division as I did above. Since there has not been a single sighting since the PG film, the actual likelihood is far less than 43 animals.

 

[Garrette]

And yet, many do.

RayG

Oh, hoh! Now I'm going to have to Google this to see if you're right.

 

[dmaker]

I have a simple, mathematical comparison. Given that the comparison is so simple, I'm not expecting any replies from bigfoot enthusiasts.

I have a link to a picture of a pika.

These animals are very rare. It's estimated that there are only about 2,000 of them left. They are seen at the rate of about once per year. I assume that most people would agree that the picture of the pika is clear and in focus and that the animal can be easily identified as a pika.

So, let's do this with bigfoot. At what rate are bigfoot seen like this? Even if we were to ignore the obvious flaws and count the PG film as real that would still only be 1 sighting in 1967 and none since. So, that's 1 sighting in 47 years. Using the same ratio as pika, we have 2,000 / 47 = 43 animals.

For comparison.
The lowest population for the California Condor was 22 animals in 1987.
The lowest population for the Whooping Crane was 15 animals in 1941.

Both of these species would have gone extinct without intervention.

Of course, those who are actually familiar with statistics know that you can't actually find the likelihood just be simple division as I did above. Since there has not been a single sighting since the PG film, the actual likelihood is far less than 43 animals.

Ah, but bigfoot are reportedly seen hundreds of times per year. Those are just the reported ones. There are many that allegedly go unreported because of the shame and ridicule involved--or so the enthusiasts claim.

Since there is no shame in reporting a pika that I can think of---they are damned cute though--then we can assume that the single report per year is the only one? Or do you mean documented, reliable report? If that's the case, then bigfoot has zero of those, ever.

 

[Northern Lights]

I have a simple, mathematical comparison. Given that the comparison is so simple, I'm not expecting any replies from bigfoot enthusiasts.

I have a link to a picture of a pika.

These animals are very rare. It's estimated that there are only about 2,000 of them left. They are seen at the rate of about once per year. I assume that most people would agree that the picture of the pika is clear and in focus and that the animal can be easily identified as a pika.

So, let's do this with bigfoot. At what rate are bigfoot seen like this? Even if we were to ignore the obvious flaws and count the PG film as real that would still only be 1 sighting in 1967 and none since. So, that's 1 sighting in 47 years. Using the same ratio as pika, we have 2,000 / 47 = 43 animals.

For comparison.
The lowest population for the California Condor was 22 animals in 1987.
The lowest population for the Whooping Crane was 15 animals in 1941.

Both of these species would have gone extinct without intervention.

Of course, those who are actually familiar with statistics know that you can't actually find the likelihood just be simple division as I did above. Since there has not been a single sighting since the PG film, the actual likelihood is far less than 43 animals.

I'll bite.

First, your primary assumption is flawed as only one sighting has occurred since 1967. There have been thousands of reported "sightings". There are multiple databases filled with reports. I think you were trying to say there is only one film or video since 1967, which is also incorrect. There are hundreds of videos, many of which are very good, but acknowledging that seriously hurts your premise.

So, until we can agree on a primary assumption, we are never going to be able to discuss the likelihood from a statistical standpoint.

 

[RayG]

Oh, hoh! Now I'm going to have to Google this to see if you're right.

No need to Google, you can start right here on this forum by reading any number of bigfoot threads, where supposed evidence is examined and picked over until no shred of bigfoot remains.

Many proponents tend to believe that skeptics are only skeptics because they haven't examined the evidence that's out there. Some of us are skeptical because we have taken a closer look at a lot of this so-called evidence and found it woefully unconvincing.

RayG

 

[RayG]

dmaker, NL, I don't see how your arguments address what barehl wrote.

These animals are very rare. It's estimated that there are only about 2,000 of them left. They are seen at the rate of about once per year. I assume that most people would agree that the picture of the pika is clear and in focus and that the animal can be easily identified as a pika.

So, let's do this with bigfoot. At what rate are bigfoot seen like this?

Regardless of how many claims of bigfoot sightings there are each year (thousands if we are to believe proponents), there has never, ever, in the history of the world been a clear and in focus image presented that can be easily identified as a bigfoot.

Period. Unless someone can produce this similar image of bigfoot it's the end of the argument. Excuses mean nothing.

RayG

 

[Pterodactyl]

I'll bite.

First, your primary assumption is flawed as only one sighting has occurred since 1967. There have been thousands of reported "sightings". There are multiple databases filled with reports. I think you were trying to say there is only one film or video since 1967, which is also incorrect. There are hundreds of videos, many of which are very good, but acknowledging that seriously hurts your premise.

So, until we can agree on a primary assumption, we are never going to be able to discuss the likelihood from a statistical standpoint.

Total nonsense.
The video images of animals on the documentary Planet Earth rise to the level of "very good". There are many documentaries about all sorts of animals filled with "very good" footage. Is there a single clear video of a bigfoot that illustrates this alleged animal in detail? No, there is not. You know it, I know it, no sense in playing games. There is no such video unless you count Todd Standing.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'll bite.

First, your primary assumption is flawed as only one sighting has occurred since 1967. There have been thousands of reported "sightings". There are multiple databases filled with reports. I think you were trying to say there is only one film or video since 1967, which is also incorrect. There are hundreds of videos, many of which are very good, but acknowledging that seriously hurts your premise.

So, until we can agree on a primary assumption, we are never going to be able to discuss the likelihood from a statistical standpoint.

One sighting with corroborating evidence.

The PGF is it, and even for that you have to believe it's not a guy in a suit.

For the sake of argument, we can say that the PGF corroborates the sighting by RP and BG.

What other sightings have corroborating evidence?

Many very good videos of bigfoot?

Where?

 

[Garrette]

No need to Google, you can start right here on this forum by reading any number of bigfoot threads, where supposed evidence is examined and picked over until no shred of bigfoot remains.

Many proponents tend to believe that skeptics are only skeptics because they haven't examined the evidence that's out there. Some of us are skeptical because we have taken a closer look at a lot of this so-called evidence and found it woefully unconvincing.

RayG

I should have included a smiley.