Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[The Shrike]

Animals were one of the driving factors in my life choices. Particularly the study of Primate Biology. I fully realize your position.

So you're an anthropologist who thinks Gigantopithecus dispersed to the New World without leaving a trace over the course of thousands of years?

So while odds are high, somebody's gonna win from time to time.
Chris B.

You didn't win anything with your sightings, other than . . .
1) A glimpse at a Pileated Woodpecker, the species that's mistaken for Ivory-billed by hundreds (thousands?)of people every year.
2) An official bigfoot "knower" card that authorizes the bearer to make up fanciful bigfooty stories to the delight of his friends and the consternation of the reality-based community.

 

[Drewbot]

So you're an anthropologist who thinks Gigantopithecus dispersed to the New World without leaving a trace over the course of thousands of years?

And never found anywhere outside of Southern China and Indochina.
Leaving no trace anywhere in the 5000 miles between Indochina and Beringea.

 

[jerrywayne]

Chris,

You know what is needed to prove your belief in the Great American Ape.

Why haven't you managed to bag one given your apparent close encounters? You have presented video that reportedly shows lounging Giant Apes just yards away. Nothing came of that wasted opportunity. What gives?

If you have what you think you have, why make it public? Why not keep it to yourself until you have the conclusive evidence in the bag? What's the point otherwise?

If you want a skeptic's opinion, why not have one tag along so he/she can see what you are seeing. It might help.

 

[Correa Neto]

Improbable and impossible are likewise different. Chris B.

Are you sure about that?

Ever heard about the concept of limit in math?

 

[LTC8K6]

If he was 51 feet away from the objective of his expedition, a giant hairy man, and he still couldn't even begin to document it, it's very unlikely that he'll ever have any success in his chosen field, imo.

 

[Drewbot]

If he reads BFF, i have posted there, that the limit as the # of sightings approaches infinity, and the limit as the number of actual Bigfoots found approaches zero

You get a probability that Bigfoot existing that approaches zero.

 

[Dinwar]

Are you sure about that?

Ever heard about the concept of limit in math?

This is why I hate the "nothing is ever proven in science" crap I see constantly. It opens the doors for exactly this type of argument.

Unless we're talking math, we do not use the term "prove" and "disprove" in an absolute sense. We use them to mean "establish beyond reasonable disagreement". There is no reasonable disagreement with the statement "bigfoot doesn't exist"; the only disagreement is of the type we're seeing here: weasling, lies, vague assertions that they have proof but are waiting for some unspecified date to release it, etc. At this point, to say it's not proven that bigfoot doesn't exist is merely to be a pedantic jerk intent on either shutting down the conversation or using a technicality as a wedge for establishing their belief as mainstream (the favorite tactic of Creationists).

 

[Correa Neto]

If he was 51 feet away from the objective of his expedition, a giant hairy man, and he still couldn't even begin to document it, it's very unlikely that he'll ever have any success in his chosen field, imo.

Uhm... Well, some people would investigate very closely a giant hairy man and not tell too much about the... Results. You know, gotta wait untill the research ends. In some cases, pics are kept secret.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

If he reads BFF, i have posted there, that the limit as the # of sightings approaches infinity, and the limit as the number of actual Bigfoots found approaches zero

You get a probability that Bigfoot existing that approaches zero.

Additionally, when a group claims 100% encounters on the once-a-year car camping trips they do whereas people who actually live or work in the woods see none - the probability that they are lying approaches 1.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

This is a "No", then.

Rarefraction curves are used to determine completeness of sampling. Essentially, an area is sampled repeatedly for wildlife (either systematically, or using historical data). The number of new species identified in the area ("new" as in "not seen before in this area during previous surveys", including truly new species and known species not previously seen in them) is then plotted. Using various statistical techniques, we can use those plots to determine the probability of discovering new species in that area.

There are a number of assumptions, of course, but the methods work very well for large (>10 kg) mammals.

I didn't say that, what I said was it won't work for Bigfoot. Final thought.

At the point where your only argument is "It's not impossible!" it's close enough for me to say it is.

That argument is flawed because you cannot already know the unknowable.

That's really the heart of the issue right there. We do not need to prove bigfoot cannot exist. Full stop. It is the obligation of those who think it does to provide the evidence. Until such evidence is provided, the default conclusion is "bigfoot doesn't exist". It's not impossible, in so far as it doesn't violate any laws of physics, but there's absolutely no justification for belief in bigfoot.

Intellectual honesty doesn't mean not saying false things. It means only saying things one can substantiate with evidence.

Now you agree it's not impossible, good job, at least now you're being honest.

So you're an anthropologist who thinks Gigantopithecus dispersed to the New World without leaving a trace over the course of thousands of years?


You didn't win anything with your sightings, other than . . .
1) A glimpse at a Pileated Woodpecker, the species that's mistaken for Ivory-billed by hundreds (thousands?)of people every year.
2) An official bigfoot "knower" card that authorizes the bearer to make up fanciful bigfooty stories to the delight of his friends and the consternation of the reality-based community.

I don't hold a degree in anthropology. But you have my basic theory correct about Giganto. Who knows, it may lead to Denisova? That's why I need a body or part to finish.

1. And yet another claim of knowing the unknowable. Very dishonest of you and flawed as well.
2. As opposed to a cynical view and trumpeting the same misinformation and invalid arguments of my peers? I'll stick to being a "knower" that they exist.
The odd thing is why anyone would feel threatened by that?

If he was 51 feet away from the objective of his expedition, a giant hairy man, and he still couldn't even begin to document it, it's very unlikely that he'll ever have any success in his chosen field, imo.

You may be right, based on what you know. Only time will tell.

If he reads BFF, i have posted there, that the limit as the # of sightings approaches infinity, and the limit as the number of actual Bigfoots found approaches zero

You get a probability that Bigfoot existing that approaches zero.

Approaching zero is fair, but as with other formulas for trying to determine the existence of an unknown species, it won't work with Bigfoot. Why not? Because you can play with the numbers and have different results each time.

They're either there or they're not, I'm of the opinion they are there.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Chris, you mentioned a passion for primate anatomy since you were a child. Do you hold degrees in any science?

 

[Cervelo]

Why would a "knower" come here of all places with nothing but his "knowsness"?

 

[Dinwar]

I didn't say that, what I said was it won't work for Bigfoot. Final thought.

You don't provide any justification for this absurd assertion. Nor do you demonstrate any understanding of how it would apply (nor, to be fair, any MISunderstanding; you don't address the issue at all).

Using rarefraction curves we can rigorously determine if there are new species (within a certain set of limits, those limits defined by the individual studies) in an area. The nature of those species is more or less irrelevant; as long as the sampling is reasonably random, their ecology isn't going to matter much. And since you assert (it's a basal assumption in your argument) that bigfoot exists in an area, and is a unique species, and can be detected, rarefraction WILL tell us if such a creature is left to be discovered.

That argument is flawed because you cannot already know the unknowable.

You fail to understand my statement. I mean, the fact that you call it an argument is proof of that, but aside from that your statement is still nonsense.

Basically, I'm saying that if your best argument is a pedantic statement, you have no actual data to support your assertions and therefore they can be dismissed.

Besides, you're the one asserting knowledge here. All we're doing is pointing out that you cannot support your assertions. I'm not claiming to know the unknowable--I'm claiming to know what's been repeatedly demonstrated over centuries. The only reason you say it's unknowable is that you only count evidence supporting your pet hypothesis (a technical term, by the way) as actual evidence. That is YOUR failing, and in no way alters the nature of my argument.

Now you agree it's not impossible, good job, at least now you're being honest.

Did you read ANY of the rest of that statement? I agreed that using the mathematical defintion, no, it's not impossible--but I asserted that using such a definition was so incorrect in this context that it constitutes a confession of intellectual bancruptcy. I also provided a non-vacuous definition, by which standard it IS impossible for bigfoot to exist.

You missed the last few bits.

Approaching zero is fair, but as with other formulas for trying to determine the existence of an unknown species, it won't work with Bigfoot. Why not? Because you can play with the numbers and have different results each time.

Not true, and it shows the depths of your ignorance in ecology. There are processes for testing exactly that--for example, bootstrapping and jackknifing.

Besides, if it works for every other species it necessarily MUST work for bigfoot. Unless bigfoot isn't biological. Psychological issues do tend to not show up in rarefraction curves, I'll grant you....

 

[LTC8K6]

Uhm... Well, some people would investigate very closely a giant hairy man and not tell too much about the... Results. You know, gotta wait untill the research ends. In some cases, pics are kept secret.

Actually, he fits right in with the tradition of bigfoot expeditions that I have remarked on several times...where expeditions claim to have been very close to a bigfoot, but then the chase is always abandoned for various reasons.

Bigfoot is right there!

Aw hell, I gotta go change the oil in my truck...

Bigfoot was just here!

Aw hell, I gotta go cut my grass...

Bigfoot always makes a goal line stand.

Bigfoot expeditions never score on bigfoot, despite many claims of entering well into the red zone.

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, he fits right in with the tradition of bigfoot expeditions that I have remarked on several times...where expeditions claim to have been very close to a bigfoot, but then the chase is always abandoned for various reasons.

Never understood that. I mean, I remember leaving a rather large piece of flesh behind because I needed to get out of the way of that multi-tonne construction equipment RIGHT BLOODY NOW but that fossil was NOT going to stay in the ground. I recall reading a story of Darwin holding two beetles in his hands, wanting to catch a third, so he popped one in his mouth to free up a hand (and discovered that they taste horrible, an interesting adaptation). I recall stories of scientists literally killing themselves to discover new medical knowledge.

If they were really interested in bigfoot, pretty much nothing would distract them. It's curious as to why they allow themselves to be so distracted.

 

[Cervelo]

They run off because biggie puts the mind meld..bad ju-ju on them!
Plus they don't want to seem all pushy....you know so they can come back later and hang out with their Bigfoot buddy in the woods. It's a tried and true "research" protocol.

 

[tsig]

Never understood that. I mean, I remember leaving a rather large piece of flesh behind because I needed to get out of the way of that multi-tonne construction equipment RIGHT BLOODY NOW but that fossil was NOT going to stay in the ground. I recall reading a story of Darwin holding two beetles in his hands, wanting to catch a third, so he popped one in his mouth to free up a hand (and discovered that they taste horrible, an interesting adaptation). I recall stories of scientists literally killing themselves to discover new medical knowledge.

If they were really interested in bigfoot, pretty much nothing would distract them. It's curious as to why they allow themselves to be so distracted.

Because the fun is looking for bigfoot, if you find bigfoot the fun is done.

 

[Pterodactyl]

You guys are wasting your time. This guy knows there's no such animal. Plainly he does.

Your perfectly respectable adherence to the only reasonable and logical method of separating reality from fantasy puts you at an unwinnable disadvantage to those who would exploit that commendable commitment for their own amusement.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

You guys are wasting your time. This guy knows there's no such animal. Plainly he does.

Your perfectly respectable adherence to the only reasonable and logical method of separating reality from fantasy puts you at an unwinnable disadvantage to those who would exploit that commendable commitment for their own amusement.

Exactly.

Dinwar says he doesn't understand this universal "running away just as you are about to capture bigfoot" paradox. That's only hard to understand if you agree they believe in bigfoot.

If they don't believe in bigfoot, then it is not only logical, but they have no other choice. The stories are lies. So there has to be a reason manufactured as to why they can't get a picture my three year old can take. Of real animals, that is. He took pictures of a fox last week.

I've taught my kids how to track real animals and take their pictures. Another parent here has taught his children how to lie. I just wonder - when he sees his children lying to other people, does this make him proud? Wow, son - just look at those idiots who believe what you are saying. Boy, you really did a good job there.

You can call a bar "study hall". You can claim passion about Spanish without knowing a single word. Do the children say "I want to be just like Dad: lie, lie, lie." Other kids' parents can build stuff, catch fish, hunt animals, etc. but my Dad blows them out of the water because he can lie about being someone great.

 

[LTC8K6]

Only time will tell.
Chris B.

It's been 47 years since a sasquatch supposedly strolled across Roger Patterson's path in broad daylight...

Still not one bit of useable sign.

This time thing is tough, eh?