Latest Bigfoot "evidence"
- Thread starter Deacondark
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot
- Status
Okay a few points here.
1. This is a discussion board. We should not be kowtowing to people that want to use it as a soapbox or not participate in discussions. Coming into this place with an attitude of "I don't walk to talk about this and don't have to explain myself to you" is not something anyone should be jumping to defend.
2. A discussion is not a debate. We're not in a high school debate club here where we "win" by accruing points. You don't have to be right to win a debate. A debate is not about the truth. Science is not a debate. Reality is not a debate.
3. The idea that when a person doesn't respond to errors, falsehoods, misinformation, or outright fabrications being point out in arguments they have presented that the "proper" thing to do is to drop it and "stop engaging" else you're "dogpiling" or "picking on" or "steamrolling" or whatever asanine hyperbolic term we're using to describing it this week is just massively unreasonable. Let me make this very clear. There is no level of wrong that another person can achieve that the reasonable response for sane people is for them to stop engaging them. You don't get to win by being so wrong you're wronger then wrong.
1. This is a discussion board. We should not be kowtowing to people that want to use it as a soapbox or not participate in discussions. Coming into this place with an attitude of "I don't walk to talk about this and don't have to explain myself to you" is not something anyone should be jumping to defend.
2. A discussion is not a debate. We're not in a high school debate club here where we "win" by accruing points. You don't have to be right to win a debate. A debate is not about the truth. Science is not a debate. Reality is not a debate.
3. The idea that when a person doesn't respond to errors, falsehoods, misinformation, or outright fabrications being point out in arguments they have presented that the "proper" thing to do is to drop it and "stop engaging" else you're "dogpiling" or "picking on" or "steamrolling" or whatever asanine hyperbolic term we're using to describing it this week is just massively unreasonable. Let me make this very clear. There is no level of wrong that another person can achieve that the reasonable response for sane people is for them to stop engaging them. You don't get to win by being so wrong you're wronger then wrong.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,488
Are there any examples of Bigfoot Knowers who later switched to skepticism and a complete disbelief in their own sighting which was the basis for them being a Knower? I've seen believers make the switch but I don't recall any Knowers that did that.
My point is that once a person has declared themselves a Bigfoot Knower (either by calling themselves that or by direct assurance of that) then no amount or kind of education can teach them that Bigfoot doesn't or almost certainly doesn't exist. As if... once they appear as a Knower then any attempt at educating is a complete waste of time and effort if the goal is to convert their thinking.
My point is that once a person has declared themselves a Bigfoot Knower (either by calling themselves that or by direct assurance of that) then no amount or kind of education can teach them that Bigfoot doesn't or almost certainly doesn't exist. As if... once they appear as a Knower then any attempt at educating is a complete waste of time and effort if the goal is to convert their thinking.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
The creationist canard about "how few fossils there are" is trotted out to imply that the "dearth" of fossils means scientists are faking it as much as BFFters. As such, it is worth contending, every time it is raised. As has been pointed out, North America has many good environments conducive to fossil preservation. The fact that no giant north american primate fossils have ever been found, in any of those locations, is not an artifact of the poverty of the fossil record, but an indication that one cannot find what is not, and has not been, there.
The on-topic fact is that no objective, empirical, physical evidence of any giant North American primate, past or present, has ever stood up to the least scrutiny...if it has been presented at all.
Not to mention, Chris did not "overlook" the fact...he misstated it, ignored it, made demonstrably false statements about it, and persisted in his intransigence. Such is always worth speaking out about. If you find that distasteful, you might consider finding a "special snowflake" forum.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
I stopped cheering long enough to nominate this...
This has come up before, I hit on it briefly just a minute ago in response to Jodie but I guess I should expand on it a little bit.
If someone adopts a skeptical mindset and takes the stance that actively oppossing the spreading of falsehoods is in important, this is gonna get trotted out against you a lot.
Now first of all... no I don't accept this. Sure it's right 99% of the time and for the most part I do agree. For the most part I have simply abandonded the Woo Slingers to their lunancy. It's nigh impossible to reason someone out of an idea they didn't reason themselves into.
But the idea that simply because it's very, very hard to change someone's mind means ones shouldn't try is the absolute definition of anti-intellectual defeatism.
But regardless let's say that is true and all these Woo Slingers are hopelessly lost to their causes. Still wouldn't change my actions here.
As I said before arguing with a brick wall isn't always for yours or the brick wall's benefit. It can be for the benefit of anyone watching.
Exactly what it says on the tin: a review of something by one's peers. The peers do not all need to have agreeing opinions of the thing they're reviewing. And a paper that goes through peer review isn't necessarily correct--lots of scientific ideas go through that process, and turn out to be wrong. What determines whether an idea is correct or not isn't consensus, but evidence. The only time scientists must come to a consensus is when holding a different opinion requires ignoring data, but that's not them deciding to agree with each other; it's them each individually agreeing with the data, and that leading them all to the same conclusion.
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: jhunter1163
Let's try this again....
Jodie, I'm a practicing paleontologist. This is what I do for a living. I want you to think about that for a moment: you are arguing about how to do paleontology, with someone who does it. You should really consider whether you or I has more knowledge about this sort of thing.
I'm merely pointing out how you are coming across. If you did not intend to say those things, I recommend revising a few statements.
Professional scientists--and in particular field workers--are not amateurs bumbling around in the woods for an afternoon. Believe it or not, we have actually considered these concepts in the past 300 to 500 years (depending on how you count it).
Jodie, I'm a practicing paleontologist. This is what I do for a living. I want you to think about that for a moment: you are arguing about how to do paleontology, with someone who does it. You should really consider whether you or I has more knowledge about this sort of thing.
Peer review determines if a paper is worthy of adding to the centuries-long conversation that is science. It has nothing to do with consensus. The reviewers don't even have to agree--and often they don't. It's a cliche joke that you'll get one reviewer telling you to do one thing and another telling you the exact opposite. Also, even if they all agree it's only a consensus in the most pedantic definition of the term, as there are only a few reviewers for any paper--two or three, for the papers I've worked on.Jodie said:
True. You've simply stated that my entire profession was incompetent at assessing any such remains, that we guess at which characters to use for taxonomy, that we're cowards unable to stand on the conviction of our own analysis, etc.
I'm merely pointing out how you are coming across. If you did not intend to say those things, I recommend revising a few statements.
Please don't.
Do you honestly think that no biologist or paleontologist considers such things? How do you imagine we do field work? Establishment of provenance is absolutely critical for our work. For recently dead things, it's not terribly difficult, even if there are reasonable doubts as to the provenance--dental and hair microchemistry analysis can tell us quite precisely where the organism lived, and stomach contents can tell us if it's been feeding in the area or not. This isn't rocket science, nor is it something that any competent scientist would fail to do upon finding a bigfoot carcass.
Professional scientists--and in particular field workers--are not amateurs bumbling around in the woods for an afternoon. Believe it or not, we have actually considered these concepts in the past 300 to 500 years (depending on how you count it).
I invite you to read through some of the literature on the taxonomy of mammal fossils. You are so wrong it's not even funny. We're talking "The Earth is flat" levels of wrong here. Plus, I've already addressed the "second opinion" nonsense. Please actually take the time to consider what I've said before repeating rubbish I've already addressed.
Completely wrong. If no one can reproduce your results, sure, that means you're wrong; however, there are no labs reproducing biological or paleontological experiments as their main activity (which would be necessary for your statements to be true). If bigfoot were found there would be intense analysis of the creature by pretty much every field of biological science; however, they'd each do their own analysis. While these analyses would overlap, few would be direct reproductions and then they'd only be so if there was some reason to doubt the original work.
Perhaps. Of course, each scientist is obligated to arrive at their own conclusions, based on the evidence they find. So while there may be a consensus eventually, it's utterly irrelevant to practicing scientists in the relevant fields. The ONLY factor worthy of consideration is the evidence. The consensus is only of use to people with no expertise in the field and who are not able to evaluate the data on their own. There's no shame in that, by the way--science, even the sub-branches of it--is simply too complex for anyone to master all the nuances of. But you are deeply mistaken if you think that the consensus is something scientists in the field actually pay attention to. We don't. We look at the data. The consensus is something other people compile; we're too busy advancing human understanding. On the cutting edge there is no consensus.
The Shrike
Philosopher
You should try being a wildlife biologist who participates at the BFF.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Speaking of evidence (which we haven't been, but I'll give it a shot), here is a page with lots of photographic evidence that might be fun to discuss.
It gives an account of the Hovey-posted upper back photo, but additionally at column right there is a string of BF pics, some of which, AFAIK, have not yet been analyzed by the JREF community. These include the August 6, 2012 "Alberta Trapper" pic, the August 2, 2012 "Ontario" pics, the October 19, 2012 "Extreme Expeditions" pic, and the September 21, 2012 "Trail Cam" pic showing a dashing right-to-left something-or-other.
What strikes me upon a passing inspection is that each subject looks so different from the others in terms of morphology and hair that we must be dealing with distinct sub-species (if the animals are real). That, or only one of them is the real BF deal and the others are fake. Or, all of them are fake or misidentifications.
I wonder which explanation is the most likely...?
It gives an account of the Hovey-posted upper back photo, but additionally at column right there is a string of BF pics, some of which, AFAIK, have not yet been analyzed by the JREF community. These include the August 6, 2012 "Alberta Trapper" pic, the August 2, 2012 "Ontario" pics, the October 19, 2012 "Extreme Expeditions" pic, and the September 21, 2012 "Trail Cam" pic showing a dashing right-to-left something-or-other.
What strikes me upon a passing inspection is that each subject looks so different from the others in terms of morphology and hair that we must be dealing with distinct sub-species (if the animals are real). That, or only one of them is the real BF deal and the others are fake. Or, all of them are fake or misidentifications.
I wonder which explanation is the most likely...?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
A series of questions arises from the "Extreme Expeditions" pic and "1 second film clip of the 'unknown' creature", such as:
Why isn't there more footage? How did the team capture a single second of video? How can they purport that it is "clear" when it's anything but, showing what looks to be a column of white smoke which, if examined from different angles, could approximate the upper torso and right elbow of a person in a white fur suit? Where are the subject's legs? What are the other objects in the photo? The linked article says:
... but I see neither an extinguished campfire nor sleeping persons. Just a large rectangular table-like object with bottles and other identifiable items on top of it, possibly bottles.
Bigfoot science certainly is a mysterious art.
Why isn't there more footage? How did the team capture a single second of video? How can they purport that it is "clear" when it's anything but, showing what looks to be a column of white smoke which, if examined from different angles, could approximate the upper torso and right elbow of a person in a white fur suit? Where are the subject's legs? What are the other objects in the photo? The linked article says:
The image, however, shows an unidentifiable object situated between an extinguished campfire and two team members who were sleeping outside unaware.
... but I see neither an extinguished campfire nor sleeping persons. Just a large rectangular table-like object with bottles and other identifiable items on top of it, possibly bottles.
Bigfoot science certainly is a mysterious art.
Robrob
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 5,497
A single second of blurry video? Shocking that when you search random photos for things to support your confirmation bias you find things to support your confirmation bias. All blurry.
Seeing things that aren't there in photos isn't new or uncommon.
Seeing things that aren't there in photos isn't new or uncommon.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Top to bottom
1. Fake (obvious)
2. Probably a bear
3. Probably a bear
4. Fake
5. Fake (obvious)
6. Bear (that looks like its arse sticking up and its digging at the ground)
7. Mocked up fake using a chimpanzee
8. Fake
9. too blurry/indistinct
10. Bear
11. too blurry/indistinct
12. too blurry/indistinct
13. too blurry/indistinct
14. Probably a bear
15. too blurry/indistinct
16. Figbooters
17. Obviously a dead bear on the tailgate of a pickup truck
18. Probably a bear
19. Probably a bear
20. Patterson-Gimlin Film - - WTF?
21. Two deer
22. not claimed
23. not claimed
24. fake
25. bear
26. bear
27. not claimed
28. not claimed
29. Fake boobs? Possibly two sets, but wow! just... wow!!
Last edited:
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Wanting a believer to change their mind is maybe 10% of the reason I debate or argue with them about their belief.
HarryHenderson
Graduate Poster
Luckily you're also about teaching mush-filled minds.
It's interesting to me you're able to sustain any desire to be there at all now given their impenetrable Bigfoot 'brain trust' dedicated solely to living in a fantasy world. There are of course several other well respected double agents too (RG, SG et al), but given your obvious expertise as a scientist in wildlife biology, it's surprising you're still there. Have they ever learned anything about anything? (I mean beyond obvious well known facts like skepticism is a cult or that we deny deny deny because it excites our inner fascist dictator.) 
Is the rule nowadays anything anytime anyplace can be Bigfoot as long as it makes vague allusions to resembling something fantasized to be an 'unknown creature'? Nevermind, fantasy world.
The Shrike
Philosopher
^Don't give me too much credit, Harry. I haven't posted there in I think a couple of months. I've been breaking away precisely because the place has been overrun by nutcases who I find to be a bit too unglued to benefit from anything I might have to offer.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I agree. When we go after woo-mongers here, its more for the benefit of the (fence-sitting) lurkers than it is for any hope of converting the closed-minded.
- Status