Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Biscuit]

I like the argument that until all the missing puzzle pieces in the world are found Bigfoot could still exist.

 

[barehl]

Ray, I know I could never "convince" anyone here that Bigfoot is real with words, and I'm not trying to. All I've suggested is for everyone to remain skeptical but not skeptical to a fault. Rather than going with "impossible" as the definitive, I suggest "unlikely" would be the better term when considering Bigfoot. Is that so bad?

It doesn't work that way. You cannot wish something into existence just by saying that it isn't completely impossible. I suppose alien abduction, Atlantis, the Bermuda Triangle, the Philadelphia Project, ley lines, and ghosts are not completely impossible. But they also are not real. If you had anything worth discussing then I would be more than happy to discuss it. Nothing like that has shown up in this thread. I think people here are pretty reasonable. There's no knee-jerk rejection; it's just an inevitable conclusion based on overwhelming evidence.

If you say "Bigfoot is impossible" then you subscribe to the philosophy of stating absolutes without the required investigation. It's defined as being a scoftic for one to use a predetermined mindset on a subject. Is that critical thinking? No, it's not.

I just did a post in the Munns thread. I quote what he says and explain in pretty good detail what the problems are with his reasoning.

 

[Spektator]

(Snip)"Improbable" would do, but with many (mostly lay) people it is unfortunately taken as to mean "in the realm of possible likelyhood" (as in : anything with a probability of 1 chance out of 1 million is ultimately a certainty. Bonus point to those who know which books i am speaking about). (Snip)

Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards! "Million-to-one chances come through nine times out of ten."

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Probably not. Things that you choose to interpret as reports of conflict with bigfoot? I'm sure that there are. You enthusiasts love to put a bigfoot spin on just about everything.

Any evidence of conflict between Native Americans and bigfoot? Beyond anecdotal? No? Darn.

Try laying off the straw man for a bit Chris.

I will agree that some NA legends/characters have been stretched by some to include Bigfoot even when the description is off. However there are many NA legends/characters descriptions that match the descriptions of Bigfoot exactly as well in some of these cultures. And many demonstrate conflict with or fear of these creatures.

Are all NA legends to be considered as describing Bigfoot? Obviously not, only those matching the descriptions of Bigfoot exactly should be considered. Anything else is overreaching and there's no need for that.

Personally, I don't concentrate on NA legends etc as a tool of current investigation. It is interesting as a topic of historical interpretation though having little to do with current research/findings.

What is the "fault"? If I say that fairies, unicorns, or mermaids are impossible is that skeptical to a fault or just plain skeptical?

I don't investigate those for good reason. I don't know anyone that has reported a sighting of a fairy, unicorn, or a mermaid. I do know a guy that saw a Buck with one antler, same guy also shot a doe with antlers! I don't think the one antler buck would qualify as a unicorn though.

It seems to be a classic skeptical flaw to try and connect Bigfoot with fairies, unicorns and mermaids for some reason. I'm not aware of any reported sightings of those in KY. Bigfoot sightings, yes, the other three no. Are sightings of mermaids etc being reported here I'm unaware of? I don't think I could track a mermaid anyway.

And the "required investigation" would consist of what, photographing leafy shadows in rural Kentucky?

First, I'd say you'd need to concentrate on "what" is being reported in an area and the frequency it is being reported. Bigfoot sightings are not uncommon in KY. The other three not so much. So personally, I wouldn't put any effort into looking for those.

About the leafy shadows comment. I guess I would first try to learn when trees and bushes have leaves in KY and when they do not. That would be a pretty basic starting point of analyzing pics of "leafy" things.

What required investigation do you suggest we do before declaring that fairies, unicorns, and mermaids are impossible? Or to take an even more tangible example oft-raised by William Parcher, that Tyrannosaurs are extinct?

As above. And the T-Rex comparison would apply as well. Any current T-Rex sightings being reported? Nope. Fin. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Absolute nonsense, lol. How much "investigation" does one really need to undertake before finally realizing that there's nothing there? You'd have more luck constantly searching for a missing sock in the same washing-machine you emptied an hour before.

I don't know? How much investigation have you done to determine your findings?
Mine led me to find out there is something to the Bigfoot legend. I guess I was lucky as it only took me about 3 years of dedicated searching once I put an honest effort into it. Many go their entire careers without a sighting.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

I don't investigate those for good reason. I don't know anyone that has reported a sighting of a fairy, unicorn, or a mermaid. I do know a guy that saw a Buck with one antler, same guy also shot a doe with antlers! I don't think the one antler buck would qualify as a unicorn though.

According to the website I found on my very first search attempt, Kentucky is "... said to be home to a variety of cryptids, including hairy manbeasts, water monsters, and oversized lizards. "



Maybe you should expand your organization to include these other imaginary creatures.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Usually most of us on these board are scientist or have a scientist background or acquaintance. So when we say impossible, what we mean is that vis a vis current scientific knowledge , it is so unlikely as to to have a probability of veracity so low as to be negligible and comparable to any other faery tale, and would be a significant science rewriting if found to be true. Think of counting the probability with big negative numbers in power of 10.

Since that's a mouthfull we summarize it by "impossible". "Improbable" would do, but with many (mostly lay) people it is unfortunately taken as to mean "in the realm of possible likelyhood" (as in : anything with a probability of 1 chance out of 1 million is ultimately a certainty. Bonus point to those who know which books i am speaking about). So impossible is better to really give the correct impression of the probability since improbable is so misused.

So yeah, bigfoot is as impossible as faery unicorn and fire breathing dragons (or acid, lightning etc breathing, let us not be racist against the chromatic, gems and metallic dragon - not even counting dracolich) and ad&d being real.

As for finding missing persons, you are confusing two utter4ly different situation which are far more harder. For one bf is supposed to live there and to reproduce there and have multiple individuals. That living there is different than a missing lsot person. If you can't see why, there is no helping.

Well, as Shrike likes to remind me, "Words mean stuff." When you say "impossible" it doesn't mean "improbable", there is no saving a backdoor for a later retreat just in case you were wrong.

Once again, an attempt to tie Bigfoot in with fairies, dragons, unicorns etc. Due to the lack of sighting reports and evidence of unicorns , fairies, dragons, etc in KY, I wouldn't expect there to be any connection. There are sighting reports and evidence of Bigfoot in KY though. To disregard these and attempt to place Bigfoot in the same category as fairies, dragons and unicorns demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of scientific investigation. Surely you realize to do an investigation one of the first things to consider would be local sightings of the unknown creature in question? Interview the "witnesses", investigate any evidence left behind from the encounter etc.

About the missing persons statement. That was from a discussion of the claim that current technology should have been able to have found Bigfoot by now.
It's a flawed argument. Our technology is great and getting better but it hasn't reached the point at which we can find everything we're looking for. One thing's for certain though, as our technology improves we will be able to find everything we're looking for some day, it's inevitable and that's actually an exciting prospect. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

According to the website I found on my very first search attempt, Kentucky is "... said to be home to a variety of cryptids, including hairy manbeasts, water monsters, and oversized lizards. "



Maybe you should expand your organization to include these other imaginary creatures.

Thanks anyway, I'll stick to what I know to be real. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

^^^

Me too.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, I joined this board in November of 2002. That's over 14 years ago. Let's just use that time frame, even though the actual time of waiting is much longer.

Have I waited long enough for evidence at this point?
If not, how long should I wait before I can say that bigfoot does not exist?
I'm not getting any younger.

Do you think it is unreasonable for me to say that bigfoot does not exist?

I know you want to know. I wanted to know as well. I waited, was skeptical, and yes often made fun of Bigfoot "witnesses". But in the back of my mind I always wondered "Could there be something to this Bigfoot thing?"

I waited too, since 1980. I waited for someone to bring me the proof that these things existed. It never happened. You know what I decided to do? Go out and get it myself.

I'm lucky, I live in an area with historical and current sightings. I heard screams as a kid growing up. My relatives reported an odd encounter with "something". My neighbors reported an odd encounter with "something". My Dad and I had found large tracks in the tobacco patch and around fruit trees of "something". Still I delayed. All these unexplained happenings went on, but I waited 'til 2007 to begin looking. After another unexplainable encounter shook me up in 2007 I decided to find the answer for myself. I did.
Chris B.

 

[eerok]

How much investigation have you done to determine your findings?

Yes, of course we all have to do science for ourselves, or it doesn't count.

And on that subject, good job on inventing and building your own computer and internet... not like those lamers who rely on others to do their work for them.

Mind, it'd be great if someone invented something like, say, a society, where people could share resources and knowledge. We could even train people for specialized tasks, like testing hypotheses pertaining to the world around us. Now that would be nifty...

But pardon my woolgathering... We gotta get out there and hit those woods. Those fuzzy shadows aren't going to blur themselves.

 

[The Shrike]

Why are unexplained phenomena only legitimate to investigate if they're reported from Kentucky?

"Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including the Near East, Europe, Africa and Asia. The first stories appeared in ancient Assyria, . . .

Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids while exploring the Caribbean, and supposed sightings have been reported in the 20th and 21st centuries in Canada, Israel, and Zimbabwe."

Let's see here . . .

1) Centuries' long oral and written history of mermaid? Check.
2) Stories of encounters spanning multiple continents? Check.
3) Famous explorer dude claims to have seen one? Check.
4) Modern reports - including 21st Century? Check.

You're not being a very good skeptic by writing off mermaids without conducting your own, exhaustive research into their whereabouts, Chris.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Yes, of course...<brevity only snip>... Those fuzzy shadows aren't going to blur themselves.

An instant classic.

In the same vein as above, I think we need to dumb this down a bit so some one of us can catch up.

A fourth grader could understand this. Chris, can you show the specific differences evidentially¹ between peoples' claims of seeing unicorns mermaids and your claim of see'n Bigfoot? Say in the same way I could show you the differences between my claim of seeing elephants and peoples' claims of seeing Bigfoot.


¹ Evidence includes the necessary/proper appurtenances and does not include your own "proprietary" knowledge.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

eerok,
If you're waiting for Bigfoot to jump out of your computer's monitor, you may be waiting for the rest of your life. I waited too for awhile with the same results. Waiting is not the answer. But, if you are simply set on waiting, this comes to mind:
"Never interrupt someone doing what you said can't be done."
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why are unexplained phenomena only legitimate to investigate if they're reported from Kentucky?

"Mermaids appear in the folklore of many cultures worldwide, including the Near East, Europe, Africa and Asia. The first stories appeared in ancient Assyria, . . .

Christopher Columbus reported seeing mermaids while exploring the Caribbean, and supposed sightings have been reported in the 20th and 21st centuries in Canada, Israel, and Zimbabwe."

Let's see here . . .

1) Centuries' long oral and written history of mermaid? Check.
2) Stories of encounters spanning multiple continents? Check.
3) Famous explorer dude claims to have seen one? Check.
4) Modern reports - including 21st Century? Check.

You're not being a very good skeptic by writing off mermaids without conducting your own, exhaustive research into their whereabouts, Chris.

I'm really not interested in mermaids. Mainly because I've never had any kind of experience or odd happening occur as a result of mermaid activity. (or heard of any here either) I've not had any contact with or sought any mermaid witnesses and since KY is kinda landlocked from the ocean, that would negate them showing up here even if they did exist anyway. Either way, mermaids are unrelated to Bigfoot.

1.Bigfoot has ongoing current sightings and leaves trace evidence of passing.
Mermaids? Nope.
2.Evidence of passing can be found for Bigfoot, ie tracks, broken branches,sounds, etc.
Mermaids? Hmm, I'm not sure, none that I could see or look for I guess.

Bottom line is there is a reason to investigate Bigfoot in KY, there is no reason to look for mermaids. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

"tracks, broken branches,sounds, etc."

These can be found anywhere and can be explained easily without involving bigfoot.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

In every case?
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Yes, in every case. If bigfoot did exist, there would be evidence, copious amounts, that could only be explained by bigfoot. Such as bigfoot hair, bigfoot DNA, bigfoot fossils, and captive bigfoots. If bigfoot actually existed, you would not be forced to rest your case upon ambiguity.

 

[The Shrike]

So only things of interest to Chris have merit for skeptical investigation?? Those things include those things he thinks he's already experienced?

 

[The Shrike]

1.Bigfoot has ongoing current sightings

What do you think the "21st Century" means?

and leaves trace evidence of passing.
Mermaids? Nope.

What about that stain in my swim trunks?

2.Evidence of passing can be found for Bigfoot, ie tracks, broken branches,sounds, etc.
Mermaids?

Mermaids - yes sounds. That's how the sailors often first caught sight of them, by following the sound. Selkies are said to leave their skins on the shore. Can I show you one of those skins? Sure, as soon as you show me a piece of a bigfoot.

Bottom line is there is a reason to investigate Bigfoot in KY, . . .

Yes, and that reason is the BLAARG.