Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[RayG]

Patty, one. Skeptics, zero.

Score 67 to 0. The proponents win!

Skeptics rally. Score 67 to 78.

Dog 31,798 Chair 0...

Argue all you like, the film is not definitive evidence of sasquatch or human. It's been 40 years, people still disagree about it, time to move along.

Luminous, I'll ask you again, where is the recent evidence for bigfoot?

Shelve that 40-year-old film and bring something recent to the table. What is the bestest newest evidence that convinces you bigfoot is roaming the woods of North America?

You make it sound like there is no serious research taking place anywhere in the world.

Scientists and those claiming to use science to try to solve this mystery can't make stuff up or fudge data. You also can't claim to have run a successful experiment when you use improper procedures and/or materials.

Claims of IM indexes, midtarsal-breaks, skeletal structures, height to stride ratios, height to foot-size ratios, inhuman shoulder-widths, or enormous weight are pure speculation. In no instance has an actual body, skeleton or foot been used for comparison purposes. These speculations are impossible to verify, remain unsupported, and apply to more than just the physical aspects of this uncatalogued creature. Migration, population, sleeping habits, diet, mating rituals, and everything else about bigfoot remains unverified speculation because there is no solid evidence for any of it.

Like it or not, science won't truly take this subject seriously until something beyond circumstantial evidence is produced. One only has to look at Wegener and Continental Drift for an example of that.

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

Wegener and continental drift is not a very good analogy with bigfoot, IMHO.

Wegener had reliable evidence at his side. He hadn't, however, one or more pieces of evidence that could not be explained by any other way than moving continents. Another thing that he hadn't was a plausible mechanism to explain continental drift.

So, most of geologists scratched their heads and said something like "*****, this guy is pointing to something that makes sense, the individual pieces of evidence fit quite nicely, but how can continents move? And there are alternative explanations for each piece of evidence that do not involve moving continents!"

Thus, continental drif was seen as a very interesting but unfortunately unlikely idea. Few "scoffed" at the idea and even fewer -if any-"scoffed" at the evidence. It was always there "running in the background" awaiting for new pieces of evidence. And these new pieces of evidence increased in number and types as the years passed. To back the above, I suggest reading Principles of Physical Geology by Sir Arthur Holmes.

The quality of the evidence that Wegener had was far superior than the quality of the evidence presented so far to back bigfeet as real creatures. Could they be coincidences? Yes. Were there alternative explanations? Yes.

Here comes the key difference- the evidences for continental drift were not anedoctal neither suspected or exposed as hoaxes and misidentifications. Neither were the data stagnant. As time passed, new -and reliable- pieces of data appeared, and more geoscientists became convinced continental drift was a good (and eventually unavoidable) hypothesis, even if they could not explain it.

 

[RayG]

Wegener and continental drift is not a very good analogy with bigfoot, IMHO.

It wasn't meant as an analogy. Bigfoot proponents keep moaning that science won't take them seriously, yet the quality of evidence is severely lacking.

Wegener had reliable evidence at his side. He hadn't, however, one or more pieces of evidence that could not be explained by any other way than moving continents. Another thing that he hadn't was a plausible mechanism to explain continental drift.

Yes, that's why science adopted his hypothesis of continental drift because the evidence was more than circumstantial. I was trying to show an example of how science advances by using supportive evidence (continental drift) instead of relying on anecdotes (bigfoot sightings/tracks). Wegener and continental drift show how science actually works instead of how bigfoot proponents would like it to work.

Here comes the key difference- the evidences for continental drift were not anedoctal neither suspected or exposed as hoaxes and misidentifications. Neither were the data stagnant. As time passed, new -and reliable- pieces of data appeared, and more geoscientists became convinced continental drift was a good (and eventually unavoidable) hypothesis, even if they could not explain it.

Exactly what I was attempting to point out, obviously rather poorly.

RayG

 

[Luminous]

There is no serious research because serious researchers gave up on this years ago. There's a few dedicated people looking into it but they're not taken seriously by their peers because they're working on faith, not evidence.

A moving needle in a haystack? There'd have to be hundreds, indeed thousands of these Wookies running around to maintain a viable population, and if they're an endangered species dying out we should at least have found som physical evidence by now, be it bodies, hair, bones or even scat.

Moreover if they are being driven into extinction by the actions of man they'd be coming into contact with us more and more, as most animals do when we encroach on them. If they were moving we'd see them, we'd see much more evidence, we see films, we'd find bodies. You have nothing but a few casts of dubious authenticity and a grainy film made by people with questionable motives which you treat as the holy grail.

Dont get bogged down in the details of one particular poor quality film or the ridges on such and such a fake cast, go out and find one of these thousands of 7-foot tall primates and show it to the world. If people can film tiny blind cave-fish found only in one pool in the world, or video extremely rare big cats on the sides of mountains in Nepal then surely your serious research should have turned up something by now? No one buys the 'they're very shy' line of BS, we have the tools and technology to get round that any day. I'm not buying that there are thousands of them either when you cant turn up hair no.1

I don't know where you got the, "they're very shy" comment. I think it's more that they're very smart. You're wondering where all the evidence is, I say that some of it is in our hands already. As for the rest of what you're looking for, I say it's a matter of time. There are hundreds of sightings every year from around the globe. Forest rangers, police officers, military officers along with everyday folk are coming forward with their eyewitness reports. Unless you think to some kind of mass hallucination going on, like some on this board believe, the testimonies of these eyewitnesses holds some weight. I'd say within the next 5 to 10 years some guy driving a logging truck is going to nail one of these suckers and that will put this whole issue to rest for good. Patience my friend.

Let's just hope that the Chinese don't beat us to it with their government-funded research of the Yeren. Then of course you have the Russians and their research of the Almasty. Or the Oren Pendeck, or the Yeti and the Yowie. Gee, seems like we have a worldwide phenomenon taking place here, doesn't it? Do you still doubt that there might be thousands? After all, that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the populations of other animals.

 

[Luminous]

Dog 31,798 Chair 0...

[qimg]http://thumbnails.putfile.com/images/8/86252.jpg[/qimg]

Argue all you like, the film is not definitive evidence of sasquatch or human. It's been 40 years, people still disagree about it, time to move along.

Luminous, I'll ask you again, where is the recent evidence for bigfoot?

Shelve that 40-year-old film and bring something recent to the table. What is the bestest newest evidence that convinces you bigfoot is roaming the woods of North America?



Scientists and those claiming to use science to try to solve this mystery can't make stuff up or fudge data. You also can't claim to have run a successful experiment when you use improper procedures and/or materials.

Claims of IM indexes, midtarsal-breaks, skeletal structures, height to stride ratios, height to foot-size ratios, inhuman shoulder-widths, or enormous weight are pure speculation. In no instance has an actual body, skeleton or foot been used for comparison purposes. These speculations are impossible to verify, remain unsupported, and apply to more than just the physical aspects of this uncatalogued creature. Migration, population, sleeping habits, diet, mating rituals, and everything else about bigfoot remains unverified speculation because there is no solid evidence for any of it.

Like it or not, science won't truly take this subject seriously until something beyond circumstantial evidence is produced. One only has to look at Wegener and Continental Drift for an example of that.

RayG

Tick Tok, Tick Tok, it's all a matter of time there mister skeptical Ray. The evidence is mounting, and it's only a matter of time before something substantial is in the hands of science. There are far too many eyewitness accounts from far too many credible people in America and around the world for this to just be wishful thinking. You want evidence yesterday. The truth is that you're just an impatient person. The case is still building, it has not yet been settled and closed. The evidence you seek will come. Maybe not tomorrow, but it will come.

The question is will you still believe the things you believe when it does come? If you're a humble man, you'll admit you were wrong. If you're not, we will hear nothing but more arguments from you.

 

[kitakaze]

I don't know where you got the, "they're very shy" comment.

Yes, man! Who's ever seen such silliness written in footy tomes!?

I think it's more that they're very smart.

Yaaay! Because?

You're wondering where all the evidence is, I say that some of it is in our hands already.

You say? Say what?

As for the rest of what you're looking for, I say it's a matter of time.

You don't say!

There are hundreds of sightings every year from around the globe.

The globe, even! Go UK!

Forest rangers, police officers, military officers along with everyday folk are coming forward with their eyewitness reports.

Like Paul Freeman?

Unless you think to some kind of mass hallucination going on, like some on this board believe, the testimonies of these eyewitnesses holds some weight.

Yes, a lot of weak coffee does get rather heavy.

I'd say within the next 5 to 10 years some guy driving a logging truck is going to nail one of these suckers and that will put this whole issue to rest for good.

Because logging trucks in the last 50 years are just pansy.

Patience my friend.

Keep the faith!

Let's just hope that the Chinese don't beat us to it with their government-funded research of the Yeren.

Why?

Then of course you have the Russians and their research of the Almasty.

Of course! Go Zana!

Or the Oren Pendeck,

Who needs spell checking when years and years of game cams from one end of the park to the other show squat?

or the Yeti

The scalp! The divergent toe!

and the Yowie.

What's a Wallace Line?

Gee, seems like we have a worldwide phenomenon taking place here, doesn't it?

Iowa and Hawaii! Go team! South Africa and Afghanistan, word!

Do you still doubt that there might be thousands?

In the face of such reliable evidence?

After all, that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the populations of other animals.

Like the ones with a population under twenty that we have type specimens for?

 

[Luminous]

Yes, man! Who's ever seen such silliness written in footy tomes!?Yaaay! Because?You say? Say what?You don't say!The globe, even! Go UK!Like Paul Freeman?Yes, a lot of weak coffee does get rather heavy.Because logging trucks in the last 50 years are just pansy.Keep the faith!Why?Of course! Go Zana!Who needs spell checking when years and years of game cams from one end of the park to the other show squat?The scalp! The divergent toe!What's a Wallace Line?Iowa and Hawaii! Go team! South Africa and Afghanistan, word!In the face of such reliable evidence?Like the ones with a population under twenty that we have type specimens for?

Sounds like someone's got the hiccups!

 

[RayG]

Tick Tok, Tick Tok, it's all a matter of time there mister skeptical Ray.

I'll bet that's what Dahinden and Krantz thought too.

The evidence is mounting, and it's only a matter of time before something substantial is in the hands of science.

What evidence? Be specific.

There are far too many eyewitness accounts from far too many credible people in America and around the world for this to just be wishful thinking.

Yes, and we know people cannot be mistaken or fooled.

You want evidence yesterday. The truth is that you're just an impatient person.

Nice assumption. I've been following this mystery for about 35 years. The evidence never gets any better. Speculation, assumptions and wishful-thinking abound but no substantial evidence.

The case is still building, it has not yet been settled and closed. The evidence you seek will come. Maybe not tomorrow, but it will come.

At the rate it's advancing, I'm predicting my children's children's grandchildren will not see the discovery and classification of this mysterious critter.

The question is will you still believe the things you believe when it does come? If you're a humble man, you'll admit you were wrong. If you're not, we will hear nothing but more arguments from you.

I follow wherever the evidence leads. If the day ever comes I will gladly eat crow/humble pie. In the meantime, your wishful-thinking will not bring us any closer to that day.

And, in case you missed it the first two times:

Luminous, I'll ask you again, where is the recent evidence for bigfoot?

RayG

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Where is ANY decent evidence for bigfoot? Still no hair, no bones, no scat, no animals, no nothing. 14,000 wookies wandering the North American forests and you have squat in the way of believable evidence.

 

[William Parcher]

I'd say within the next 5 to 10 years some guy driving a logging truck is going to nail one of these suckers and that will put this whole issue to rest for good.

Why hasn't this already happened? That no kind of vehicle has ever killed a Bigfoot should be a good indicator already. Every other large American mammal has been road-killed, including the rare ones. But why say "in the next 5-10 years", instead of just saying "some time in the future"?

 

[William Parcher]

I don't know where you got the, "they're very shy" comment. I think it's more that they're very smart.

Smart? It's more like the proposed behavior and intelligence of Bigfoot doesn't make any rational sense. They actively avoid people, yet we never kill or harm them. There is no rational explanation for why they don't walk in front of trail cameras.

They are not at all like any other kind of highly intelligent mammal, and their behavior cannot be explained by comparisons or even accepted principles of how behaviors are formed over great time (natural selection). The most intelligent animals we know of (great apes and cetaceans) allow us to approach them, even though we hunt and kill them! Additionally, it is completely inexplicable why Bigfoots don't kill and injure humans. The risk should be compounded when they have offspring. It never happens. These things are supposed to be bold enough to enter campsites and homesteads, yet they never harm anyone no matter what we do.

Why would you predict that Bigfoot will be confirmed by roadkill; instead of predicting that some unlucky person is going to stumble out of the forest with their arm ripped off by a Bigfoot and they have hair and DNA on their body?

It doesn't sound like a real animal. It sounds like a mythical animal. An enormous, terrifying and sometimes aggressive hairy ape that never ever harms anyone under any circumstances. That's a myth, dude!

 

[drapier]

Let's just hope that the Chinese don't beat us to it with their government-funded research of the Yeren. Then of course you have the Russians and their research of the Almasty. Or the Oren Pendeck, or the Yeti and the Yowie. Gee, seems like we have a worldwide phenomenon taking place here, doesn't it? Do you still doubt that there might be thousands? After all, that's just a drop in the bucket compared to the populations of other animals.

Egads! You're right! It's unpatriotic to let the crypto-hominid research gap grow even bigger.

 

[Correa Neto]

It wasn't meant as an analogy. Bigfoot proponents keep moaning that science won't take them seriously, yet the quality of evidence is severely lacking.

Yes, I understood your motivations. However, I’ve read that analogy before and considered it was a good opportunity to add some more emphasis on the core problem – poor data quality. Quantity means nothing in such cases. Quality is what you are actually looking for. What’s more valuable? One ton of crap or one kilogram of gold? It seems some bigfoot proponents have problems understanding this.

Here are a few examples of similarly analogies we’ve been presented so far:
"See what they did to Galileo?"
"Science once said bees could not fly"
"Science once said it was impossible for heavier-than-the-air machines to fly"

All of the above already had their flaws exposed here.

 

[Correa Neto]

Why hasn't this already happened? That no kind of vehicle has ever killed a Bigfoot should be a good indicator already. Every other large American mammal has been road-killed, including the rare ones. But why say "in the next 5-10 years", instead of just saying "some time in the future"?

You know, I feel safe enough to make a bet on this. A bet not unlike the ones I propose to those who believe in the rapture, the end of the world predicted by the Mayan calendar and similar doomsday silliness. Untill now, no one dared to accept the bet.

Set the date for bigfoot "discovery" within our plausible lifespans. I bet U$ 5K (corrected value) that no bigfoot will be discovered. Choose: 5, 8 or 10 years?

I also bet U$ 2.5K that after the timespan chosen above, the "pro" evidence discussed and presented will be pretty much the same we are discussing since the beggining of the bigfoot threads.

This is a bet that I would really like to loose. But I think bigfeet are most likely just mythical creatures and that I'll end up with some extra cash in my bank account.

 

[William Parcher]

Importantly, continents are not hoaxable things. Scientists do not risk being duped into thinking Asia is natural, instead of being created by Chuck Norris' bare hands.

 

[tube]

The "no-roadkill" argument is fleshed out by the BFRO here:

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=410

"The short answer: Bigfoots are extremely rare and extremely cautious--so much so that the odds of a roadkill have not caught up with any yet."

If they are so cautious, why do they step onto man's roads in the first place? Indeed, a number of the highest profile cases involve Bigfoot on a road, or very near by:

1. 1967 Blue Creek Mountain-Onion Mountain, hundreds of tracks right on the road itself.

2. 2000 Skookum elk wallow; 25 feet from a maintained road.

3. 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film site; listed in a map created by Bob Titmus on page 6 of Daniel Perez Bigfoot Times monograph as containing an "old road paralleling creek"

Again from the BFRO:

"Those who have gotten closest to bigfoots say an analogy of "intelligent ape" is not as accurate as "hair-covered aboriginal man."

Yeah, but even the most intellegent primate on the planet becomes roadkill from time to time, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT HAVE NOT GROWN UP AROUND HIGH SPEED VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

 

[kitakaze]

Sounds like someone's got the hiccups!

Sounds like someone's been into the footy fluff. That's ok, it's very easy to show as such. Now we get to enjoy you rolling in it in whatever bigfoot related threads you can find.

 

[LTC8K6]

Tick Tok, Tick Tok, it's all a matter of time there mister skeptical Ray. The evidence is mounting, and it's only a matter of time before something substantial is in the hands of science. There are far too many eyewitness accounts from far too many credible people in America and around the world for this to just be wishful thinking. You want evidence yesterday. The truth is that you're just an impatient person. The case is still building, it has not yet been settled and closed. The evidence you seek will come. Maybe not tomorrow, but it will come.

That was hilarious!

 

[LTC8K6]

Positive. 2 inches. That's about right.

Which would hide all muscular details, imo.

Both short and 2-4 inches long are apparently the same length...

Not to mention the resolution limit of the film...

 

[LTC8K6]

Does sasquatch grow a winter coat and shed it in the summer?