Bigfoot?

[wvbig]

Who's bluffing?

 

 

 

They are NO different than the bigfoot ones. Sorry to that the truth is hard to accept for you, but it's still the truth.

The key words to my calling your bluff are "beyond eye witness reports" The second video only shows the area of the tree where some people claim to have seen it.

 

Everybody? I can't. It's flat. I'm not the only one who can't, either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXQSmD2HWFE

 

 

It's not only about being flat, or about having no toes, it's about the WAY IT IS BUILT. Look at the videos above, they make very good points.

 

Another point you should consider is that no matter how rare this animal supposedly is, there is no chance in hell that every time someone spots it, a scientist particularly, it results only with far, blurry, unclear images or videos. That makes no sense, unless it's either a hoax.

 

Also, a scientist that proves bigfoot exists; or, for that matter, that will find and catalog an entirely new species, will win such high prestige and recognition (and prizes, and money) that there's no logic in thinking scientists are just 'not interested'.

 

If there were actual proofs to convince anyone that there's even a POINT to start hunting down bigfoot, the entirescientific community that even REMOTELY touches biology and speciation would go.

 

 

And stop ignoring what you don't want to answer. There has been questions that were raised for your consideration, and instead of answering, you again posted video. So fine, we'll comment on the videos (you know, a simple google search about the SCIENCE behind this would solve your video needs but.. fine..) but YOU stop trolling and nitpicking what you would LIKE to answer, and start dealing with *all* of our questions.

 

 

 

That's not evidence, it's interpretative explanation. Evidence would be a skeleton, or a bone structure, or a part of a heel bone.

 

See our problem here?

 

btw, one last thing here -- the fact you chose to relate to "Science" as a thing (?) and seemingly to remove yourself from it ("they.." "by their own people"... ""they choose"... "their pre-conceived notions", etc) raises a serious question: Are you in the right place?

You are in a science forums. We are open minded, but we go by the scientific method and demand rigorous proof before we accept theories, be it bigfoot, the pink unicorn or the LHC blowing up the world. If you think that bigfoot is out of the realm of science, or if you dislike "science" so much, and our quest for EVIDENCE (ahem) so much, then I must ask you to consider if you're in the right forum.

 

We will not just accept what you say on the basis of blurry films (that CAN easily be faked) and fantastic assumptions. If you're willing to stand up for your theory with some proof, I will be more than happy to debate this. The ball is in your hands.

I never claimed to be a scientist & there is no place on the registration form that asks applicants if they are scientists or not. Just because you say something isn't evidence, doesn't mean it isn't. And as for the youtube videos claiming to prove the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake. The difference at the back of the foot appearing to be much more drastic in the first video than in the second indicates it's partly because of the angle difference between the first & second videos. The lighting in the closeups on the first video is also really bad in black & white. It looks to me like part of the leg is washed out. And I am a formally trained photographer. But in the interest of fairness & open-mindedness, I will send these links to Dr. Meldrum for his opinion on them.

[iNow]

Yawn.

[wvbig]

Let me see if I understand this. The Patterson/Gimlin film isn't evidence that Bigfoot exists. But these clips are proof or at least evidence, that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax? No chance that the youtube poster digitally edited it to suit his/her agenda I guess?

[foodchain]

Let me see if I understand this. The Patterson/Gimlin film isn't evidence that Bigfoot exists. But these clips are proof or at least evidence, that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax? No chance that the youtube poster digitally edited it to suit his/her agenda I guess?

 

 

Here is some stuff. I have gone camping before in my life. One night I was spooked and of course when I heard something I performed a throw with a rock projectile for no real good reason I could think of. I think it was Bigfoot though, and on to a different point I honestly believe I have witnessed a UFO. No seriously, it appeared just like a human made satellite in the sky, then it speed up and had a trail like in star trek, the trail looked similar to a electronic heartbeat logo you might see for some crime drama.

 

Anyways big foot would have to be damn good to leave nothing behind for evidence in however long its existed in natural history, unless you do favor shoddy evidence like footprints that in every case I know off have been disproved by experts as false or improvised.

[mooeypoo]

Let me see if I understand this. The Patterson/Gimlin film isn't evidence that Bigfoot exists. But these clips are proof or at least evidence, that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax? No chance that the youtube poster digitally edited it to suit his/her agenda I guess?

 

The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that bigfoot exists, not on US to prove he doesn't.

 

The videos, by themselves, are not valid proof for a CLAIM. They are, however, making good points in breaking up the original video, which is supposed to be a proof.

 

The bottom line, then, is that the Patterson/Gimlin is *not* valid evidence.

 

Think about it this way: How would you differentiate under 100% certainty between a cleverly made hoax and a blurry accidentally-taken video of bigfoot? How could you know for sure you're not being hoaxed?

 

One way would be to go out and find bigfoot bones (which, btw, the lack of such bones should already, by itself, after so many years of search, raise serious doubts about any person doing serious 'looking' for the animal).

 

In order to make sure that you do not fall into elaborate hoaxes (and I am not just talking about bigfoot.. this could've been a video about little green men, too) - and there are VERY VERY well made ones -- you must have a certain standard upon which you define certainty. A "ladder" of rating you give certain types of evidence.

 

Eyewittness account will have very low credence.

DNA-Approved bones will have very high credence.

 

Both are not sufficient, by themselves, to prove the existent of bigfoot, but the more high-credence proofs you have, the better the odds that your theory is right.

 

Videos - specifically the YouTube kind - low credence.

 

 

Other than that, we have no need to prove our side, we just need to challenge your evidences. If they hold still after our peer review (which is a process of science) then it still has a chance of being a valid theory. Otherwise, you won't be the first to have failed peer review by questioning, and you shouldn't take it personally.

 

~moo

[wvbig]

If you would please check the links I posted, you will see that in fact, only a small number of tracks have been proven fake. As for your UFO sighting. I too thought I saw a UFO in 1975. But when the government unveiled the stealth bomber in 1988 I believe, I instantly knew that was what I saw in 1975.

[mooeypoo]

I haven't ignored anything, I've been patiently trying to explain all those claims you've found so weird, and why the videos you post (which I have seen before, and on which we have already discussed in previous threads, as I've SAID before) are invalid as proof. All that I do while you keep posting more and more questions *without* answering our quetions, then you are surprised when we dismiss your theory.

 

 

I'm done checking your links, it's time you stop ignoring our claims whenever it suits you, and start being serious. The fact you don't LIKE our counter claims does not make them false, and does not make us the ones who ignore things.

[wvbig]

Mooeypoo said: "The videos, by themselves, are not valid proof for a CLAIM. They are, however, making good points in breaking up the original video, which is supposed to be a proof.

You skeptics always claim we consider the Patterson/Gimlin film to be proof of the existence of Bigfoot. No matter how many times or how loudly we say that we don't. Most of us don't even consider it the best evidence. I personally consider the hair samples & the dermal ridge evidence in the track casts to be more solid than the film.

 

I haven't ignored anything, I've been patiently trying to explain all those claims you've found so weird, and why the videos you post (which I have seen before, and on which we have already discussed in previous threads, as I've SAID before) are invalid as proof. All that I do while you keep posting more and more questions *without* answering our quetions, then you are surprised when we dismiss your theory.

 

 

I'm done checking your links, it's time you stop ignoring our claims whenever it suits you, and start being serious. The fact you don't LIKE our counter claims does not make them false, and does not make us the ones who ignore things.

What questions have I not answered?

[mooeypoo]

No, no, no.

 

We skeptics are skeptical of everything.

That's why we require such rigorous proof.

 

You believers are believing everything that suit you.

That's why you accept anything that will support your ideas and often ignore what doesn't support your ideas.

 

That's the entire point.

 

This is a scientific minded forum.

You are required, by the forum rules, to follow the scientific method and a very specific standard for proof.

 

Most of us don't even consider it the best evidence. I personally consider the hair samples & the dermal ridge evidence in the track casts to be more solid than the film.

 

You mean these samples? Or these, perhaps? there are also these, or perhaps these tests?

 

There's also the sonoma bigfoot explanation, if you care to watch a nicely edited movie, or the Georgia incident, a nice one.

 

There, that should give you a few ideas on why hoaxes are so damn easy to do, and what kind of evidence WOULD convince a skeptic (we're not asking much, just a *true* sample). With today's DNA testing that part is easy.

 

And yet.. it wasn't done, or if it was it was proven fake..

 

What do you expect us to believe, then?

Edited September 11, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[wvbig]

Again. We're not saying we have proof Bigfoot exists. Just that in our opinion, there is enough reason to warrant further investigation. I fully understand that a substantial unfragmeented DNA sample is needed. Either from hair, blood, or tissue. It would be nice however, to get more scientists involved who can more accurately analyze anything that we find. Recent conflicting test results of vocalizations & hair samples make me wonder if that is even possible though. Four alleged Bigfoot vocalization recordings were recently analyzed at Texas A&M University. They concluded one of these, called "The Tahoe scream", was an Elk. The problem with that is there are no Elk in the Sierra Nevadas. So it was sent to two other labs for analysis. Both labs said it definitely wasn't an Elk. One said it was probably a Gray Fox. In another case. A hair sample was sent to the Museum of Natural History in Washington D.C. They concluded it was "nearly" human. So it was sent to another lab that did a mineral analysis on it & concluded it was from an early human who ate no processed foods. only deer meat, grass roots, & clay. So the sample was then sent to a DNA lab in Denmark that concluded it was from either a domestic dog or a wolf. The problem with the dog possibility is of course the mineral analysis that determined that whatever it came from, had eaten no processed foods.

I have 3 problems with that last article:

1)It makes an inaccurate statement:The Patterson/Gimlin film has been proven to be a hoax.

2)It quotes a well known & proven hoaxer:"Tom Biscardi"

3)It also includes a population estimate from someone who in my opinion, is very gullible. In fact, his gullibility is one reason I severed all ties with him several months ago.

[ydoaPs]

I have 3 problems with that last article:

1)It makes an inaccurate statement:The Patterson/Gimlin film has been proven to be a hoax.

 

That statement is not inaccurate.

[wvbig]

That statement is not inaccurate.

Ok. Now the burden of proof is on you. Show proof that the film has been conclusively proven to be a hoax.

[mooeypoo]

Ok. Now the burden of proof is on you. Show proof that the film has been conclusively proven to be a hoax.

You got it all wrong. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If your evidence is weak, it's your responsibility to supply another.

 

And you haven't responded on my links, which showed a few things:

1. That the video is fake (the videos show several REASONS and PROOFS why it's fake, so the 'proof of fakeness' is not a video, but rather a logical claim).

2. That there are dozens of such claims out there, most of them hoaxes, which means that the standard upon which such video will be accepted as nonhoax is HIGHER than others.

3. That there are no physical evidences whatsoever, which is not only casting doubt on such a phenomenon, but actually tends to disprove it, as there is no such thing as an animal (smart as it may be) that leaves *no traces at all*.

 

Remember you asked what you ignore? Those you ignore.

And the lack of physical evidence.

 

 

But I have a completely different question for you: If your claim is not that bigfoot exists, but rather than there is a need to go check it out, then I want you to PROVE TO ME, please, that such checks were never conducted (since that is, essentially, what you are saying). As far as I know:

1. The quest to find more species is ongoing, just not this specific, rather unrealistic, animal.

2. Whoever finds a new species will be rich and famous. Your claim that no one looks for it is baseless.

 

You keep moving the goal post and changing your claim. Either you claim bigfoot exists (which is what you said in the beginning of the thread!) or you claim it's uncertain and warrant investigation. I might actually agree with you on the latter, I just think you missed a few points in your research about the people who actually *DID* go search for bigfoot, and found nothing.

[wvbig]

1)Actually, if you check again, you'll see that I did respond to the youtube video links you posted alledging proof that the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake.

2)I never said I don't believe Bigfoot exists. I said I do believe but realize we have no conclusive proof & am willing to admit I may be wrong about it existing.

3)I also never said no scientists are looking. In fact I've listed several who have and/or still are investigating it. I merely said it would be nice to get more scientists involved. Having words put in my mouth is really getting old.

One instance where scientists being part of a research party would be a big help would be if a biologist & an expert in outdoor acoustics was along & a vocalization was heard. The Biolodist could probably identify it & if not, the acoustics expert could likely determine the point of origin so it could be investigated for signs of people or animals.

[ydoaPs]

Why no arch? Why no toes?

Notice how the bigfoot heel protrudes, but none of the ape feet(human or otherwise) do. How do the Achilles tendons in the Bigfoot work? That would sure make it hard for it to walk like that.

[mooeypoo]

1)Actually, if you check again, you'll see that I did respond to the youtube video links you posted alledging proof that the Patterson/Gimlin film is fake.

2)I never said I don't believe Bigfoot exists. I said I do believe but realize we have no conclusive proof & am willing to admit I may be wrong about it existing.

3)I also never said no scientists are looking. In fact I've listed several who have and/or still are investigating it. I merely said it would be nice to get more scientists involved. Having words put in my mouth is really getting old.

One instance where scientists being part of a research party would be a big help would be if a biologist & an expert in outdoor acoustics was along & a vocalization was heard. The Biolodist could probably identify it & if not, the acoustics expert could likely determine the point of origin so it could be investigated for signs of people or animals.

 

What would convince you that there is no bigfoot? every theory in science needs to have one thing that if found will disprove it.

 

Evolution has it, the Big Bang has it, *every* theoretical notion in science, in order to be considered scientific, must have such a thing.

 

What is this 'thing' for the bigfoot theory? What, if found or discovered, will completely disprove the existence of bigfoot?

 

You must define it, or your theory is not scientific. I assume that if true scientists are looking for it, they already defined it, and you'll easily find it in their research. Please state that here.

[wvbig]

Why no arch? Why no toes?

Notice how the bigfoot heel protrudes, but none of the ape feet(human or otherwise) do. How do the Achilles tendons in the Bigfoot work? That would sure make it hard for it to walk like that.

Obviously the lighting in this photo is too washed out to know what detail the foot does or doesn't have. So to say, based on it alone, that this foot has no arch & no toes is purely conjecture.

 

What would convince you that there is no bigfoot? every theory in science needs to have one thing that if found will disprove it.

 

Evolution has it, the Big Bang has it, *every* theoretical notion in science, in order to be considered scientific, must have such a thing.

 

What is this 'thing' for the bigfoot theory? What, if found or discovered, will completely disprove the existence of bigfoot?

 

You must define it, or your theory is not scientific. I assume that if true scientists are looking for it, they already defined it, and you'll easily find it in their research. Please state that here.

A combination of proof of an elaborate conspiracy of hoaxes spreading over the entire continent for hundreds of years & definitive specific explanations for the unidentified vocalizations, hair & scat samples, and stick structures. It's not enough to say there must be a more logical explanation or explanations for these things.

[mooeypoo]

A combination of proof of an elaborate conspiracy of hoaxes spreading over the entire continent for hundreds of years & definitive specific explanations for the unidentified vocalizations, hair & scat samples, and stick structures. It's not enough to say there must be a more logical explanation or explanations for these things.

Well, there's no more to add, then, since your standard is unscientific by itself.

 

Let me explain this, yet again: You are the one making a claim. You are the one having to prove it.

 

The reason no one believes you is because the proofs you supply are just bad.

The reason they're bad is elaborated throughout the thread and other similar threads (remember the search function, it's very useful), whether you preferred to ignore them or not.

 

If your evidences were quality-enough to prove Bigfoot, *but* WE would still claim it didn't exist, THEN, and only then, would we need to prove to you that there is a conspiracy, or an elaborate hoax, or such a similar occasion.

 

But that is not the case. The case is quite simple: The evidence suck.

 

In fact, you even said so yourself, that you take these evidences to hold less credibility than others (which you have yet to supply, btw, I'm still waiting for those long lost samples).

 

So if the evidences are not good enough, the claim is not good enough. This really is the essence of it.

 

Your claim that you need us to prove to you that there's a conspiracy has no bearing on the claim you're initially making, or the proofs you're putting forth to try and substantiate it. It's unscientific condition, and it makes your claim unfalsified, which means that it is, aswell, unscientific.

 

If I were to claim the big bad wolf exists in the woods, I would need to provide proof for its existence before expecting anyone (or being able to demand of anyone) to go out and PROVE that it doesn't.

 

It's just common sense.

 

If I were to take the videos (and yes, my dear friend, people do claim that, as silly as you think, people claim it, supply videos for it of sometimes quite high level, and scream about it louder than the bigfoot fans, sometimes) of ghosts and demons and claim they exist, I would have to make sure I can PROVE they exist before demanding the scientific community should prove me wrong.

 

It's just common sense.

 

On the other hand, if I were to take the shape of the earth and believe it to be an elaborate conspiracy by the government (ahem, flat earthers, ahem ahem), this time *I* am the one who is in need of proving the conspiracy true before discounting the claim, because the claim is already PROVEN.

 

This too is common sense.

 

If I were to claim that UFOs exist (since you mentioned them, here I go using an example you probably are aware of), I would need to bring forth PROOF for their existence, before demanding my unbelieving masses to prove that UFOs *don't exist* by showing the opposite conspiracy.

 

It's just common sense.

 

If you are claiming bigfoot exists (and stop moving the goal post and changing your claims aleady) or that odds are that it exists, or that theres good reason to believe it may exist, or anything of that sort, phrased however you want, the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

To expect people to prove you wrong is to take a step forward you didn't yet earn.

 

That is just the scientific method.

 

You have officially failed peer review, which is another step in the scientific method, meant to make sure that only VALID theories pass peer review.

 

(remember flat-earthers? they'd LOVE to pass, too, and they have good points. But vain points. And they're vain for the same reason yours are, ironically, though yours not as idiotic.)

 

The Flat Earth society has an entire, elaborate, quite well thought of (although completely separate from reality) theory, that has answers for every question.

Imagine what would've happened if scientists would just accept the Flat Earth theory and its conspiracy theory that accompanies it, on the basis of personal "it sounds okay" reasons.

 

That's why science exists the way it does. So we examine claims in a way that will actually PREVENT unproven theories from getting into the realm of science, which is REALITY BASED.

 

That is common sense.

 

Congratulation, my friend, you have officially failed peer review. You shouldn't take this personally, a lot before you have. And you shouldn't make this deter you from trying to prove your points further (as many are doing), but you should take into account that the way you constructed your theory is unscientific.

 

A theory cannot be unfalsified. There must -- MUST! -- be a check, or a test, or a discovery that proves it wrong.

 

Your requirement that we "prove you wrong" when you have yet to prove yourself right, is not reasonable, unfalsifiable, unrealistic, and therefore unscientific.

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

Edited September 12, 2008 by mooeypoo

[wvbig]

Well, there's no more to add, then, since your standard is unscientific by itself.

 

Let me explain this, yet again: You are the one making a claim. You are the one having to prove it.

 

The reason no one believes you is because the proofs you supply are just bad.

The reason they're bad is elaborated throughout the thread and other similar threads (remember the search function, it's very useful), whether you preferred to ignore them or not.

 

If your evidences were quality-enough to prove Bigfoot, *but* WE would still claim it didn't exist, THEN, and only then, would we need to prove to you that there is a conspiracy, or an elaborate hoax, or such a similar occasion.

 

But that is not the case. The case is quite simple: The evidence suck.

 

In fact, you even said so yourself, that you take these evidences to hold less credibility than others (which you have yet to supply, btw, I'm still waiting for those long lost samples).

 

So if the evidences are not good enough, the claim is not good enough. This really is the essence of it.

 

Your claim that you need us to prove to you that there's a conspiracy has no bearing on the claim you're initially making, or the proofs you're putting forth to try and substantiate it. It's unscientific condition, and it makes your claim unfalsified, which means that it is, aswell, unscientific.

 

If I were to claim the big bad wolf exists in the woods, I would need to provide proof for its existence before expecting anyone (or being able to demand of anyone) to go out and PROVE that it doesn't.

 

It's just common sense.

 

If I were to take the videos (and yes, my dear friend, people do claim that, as silly as you think, people claim it, supply videos for it of sometimes quite high level, and scream about it louder than the bigfoot fans, sometimes) of ghosts and demons and claim they exist, I would have to make sure I can PROVE they exist before demanding the scientific community should prove me wrong.

 

It's just common sense.

 

On the other hand, if I were to take the shape of the earth and believe it to be an elaborate conspiracy by the government (ahem, flat earthers, ahem ahem), this time *I* am the one who is in need of proving the conspiracy true before discounting the claim, because the claim is already PROVEN.

 

This too is common sense.

 

If I were to claim that UFOs exist (since you mentioned them, here I go using an example you probably are aware of), I would need to bring forth PROOF for their existence, before demanding my unbelieving masses to prove that UFOs *don't exist* by showing the opposite conspiracy.

 

It's just common sense.

 

If you are claiming bigfoot exists (and stop moving the goal post and changing your claims aleady) or that odds are that it exists, or that theres good reason to believe it may exist, or anything of that sort, phrased however you want, the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

To expect people to prove you wrong is to take a step forward you didn't yet earn.

 

That is just the scientific method.

 

You have officially failed peer review, which is another step in the scientific method, meant to make sure that only VALID theories pass peer review.

 

(remember flat-earthers? they'd LOVE to pass, too, and they have good points. But vain points. And they're vain for the same reason yours are, ironically, though yours not as idiotic.)

 

The Flat Earth society has an entire, elaborate, quite well thought of (although completely separate from reality) theory, that has answers for every question.

Imagine what would've happened if scientists would just accept the Flat Earth theory and its conspiracy theory that accompanies it, on the basis of personal "it sounds okay" reasons.

 

That's why science exists the way it does. So we examine claims in a way that will actually PREVENT unproven theories from getting into the realm of science, which is REALITY BASED.

 

That is common sense.

 

Congratulation, my friend, you have officially failed peer review. You shouldn't take this personally, a lot before you have. And you shouldn't make this deter you from trying to prove your points further (as many are doing), but you should take into account that the way you constructed your theory is unscientific.

 

A theory cannot be unfalsified. There must -- MUST! -- be a check, or a test, or a discovery that proves it wrong.

 

Your requirement for the "prove me wrong" is not reasonable, unfalsifiable, unrealistic, and therefore unscientific.

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

 

And how is one explanation suppose to account for hoaxes AND misidentifications? Two possible "logical" explanations that skeptics give to explain sightings & other evidence. And what is this "moving the goal post" BS you keep accusing me of? As far as hair samples are concerned, that was covered in the youtube videos I gave the links to. But obviously you didn't bother to watch them.

[mooeypoo]

Have you even READ what I wrote to you? You're nitpicking again.

 

The moment we stated those videos can be fake, is the moment whatever's SHOWN IN THE VIDEOS CAN BE FAKE TOO.

 

Show better evidence. And stop answering only what you're comfortable with, I wrote a lengthy post with a lot of explanations. Read it, digest it, come after.

[wvbig]

Have you even READ what I wrote to you? You're nitpicking again.

 

The moment we stated those videos can be fake, is the moment whatever's SHOWN IN THE VIDEOS CAN BE FAKE TOO.

 

Show better evidence. And stop answering only what you're comfortable with, I wrote a lengthy post with a lot of explanations. Read it, digest it, come after.

Here is a history of attempts at debunking the Patterson/Gimlin film. Along with some interesting questions for the skeptics of it.

http://www.bfro.net/ref/theories/pgfdebunkings.asp

[mooeypoo]

you're ignoring half my post

 

again.

 

Reported. I suggest you go read a bit about the forum rules.

 

And about common courtesy. I'll repeat myself and say that the fact you ignore our claims don't make them nonexistent, and your insistence to ignore half of my points does not mean you're right. We've handled these videos before, and we've answered them in this thread. The mere POSSIBILITY that they *can* be faked - even if they're not - transforms them into a low-quality proof. It doesn't mean they're USELESS. It means they're INSUFFICIENT.

 

If I have a theory that is supported only on eyewittness accounts (that is a low-quality evidence) the theory is BUNK. It's not SUFFICIENT enough to be proven, EVEN IF THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

 

Understand? Please don't ask us to see more videos as more proof; if you want to prove your statements, it's time you take yourself seriously and supply *BETTER* proof.

 

 

You refuse to give other proof, and then wonder why we dismiss your theory.

 

Read up, my full post about peer review, and good luck next time.

 

 

~moo

[wvbig]

you're ignoring half my post

 

again.

 

Reported. I suggest you go read a bit about the forum rules.

 

And about common courtesy. I'll repeat myself and say that the fact you ignore our claims don't make them nonexistent, and your insistence to ignore half of my points does not mean you're right. We've handled these videos before, and we've answered them in this thread. The mere POSSIBILITY that they *can* be faked - even if they're not - transforms them into a low-quality proof. It doesn't mean they're USELESS. It means they're INSUFFICIENT.

 

If I have a theory that is supported only on eyewittness accounts (that is a low-quality evidence) the theory is BUNK. It's not SUFFICIENT enough to be proven, EVEN IF THE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

 

Understand? Please don't ask us to see more videos as more proof; if you want to prove your statements, it's time you take yourself seriously and supply *BETTER* proof.

 

 

You refuse to give other proof, and then wonder why we dismiss your theory.

 

Read up, my full post about peer review, and good luck next time.

 

 

~moo

 

I haven't ignored anything. The fact that you don't like the form my references come in isn't my problem & the fact that you refer to my last link as a video only proves you didn't even have the courtesy to click on it. You people are ridiculous. I'm outta here!!!

[Edtharan]

Obviously the lighting in this photo is too washed out to know what detail the foot does or doesn't have. So to say, based on it alone, that this foot has no arch & no toes is purely conjecture.

It is not completely washed out, and it would be possible to see toes even with the state of that picture.

 

Also, you can see by the lighter (whitish) area, that it is splayed out around the foot. If there was an arch, the whitish area here would curve in towards the centre of the foot (due to the profile of a foot). As it curves in the exact opposite direction (away form the centre of the foot), then it can't be a foot. However, we do know objects that have this kind of profile, they are called Shoes, this is because the bottom surface (sole) is flat, rather than arched.

 

So yes, we can determine that it has not toes, and that it has no arch.

 

You also didn't address the second query about that image. And that is whey is there a heal sticking out backwards form the "foot". No great ape or hominid has ever had such an "extension" to their foot. Biomechanicaly, speaking, this would be due to bone growth out form the heal, but this is where the Achilles tendons attach to the foot. These tendons are necessary for us to walk properly and this is why you don't get such structures on feet.

 

But the photo clearly shows such heel extensions.

 

However, such heel extensions can be explained if there is cloth attached to a shoe sole and stretching up the back of a leg.

 

As biology can't explain these heel extensions, but sewing can, it becomes much more likely that it is a costume and an actual creature because no bipedal creature descended (in the time it would have) from a great ape to acquire such a physiological structure.

 

Even so, a creature with such a physiological structure would have a different gait than what is seen in the film. This further casts doubt that this is an actual image of an unknown creature, as the physiological structures specified by the shape of the entity does not translate to the motion that it makes.

 

Based on this evidence, the only conclusion is that it is a fake.

 

Ok. Now the burden of proof is on you. Show proof that the film has been conclusively proven to be a hoax.

Done.

 

Actually the scientific method works by phrasing a proposition in a way that it should be easy to disprove.

 

As an example, I'll use Unicorns.

 

If I was investigating Unicorns, then I can phrase the proposition about their existence either as:

1) Unicorns Exist

 

or

 

2) Unicorns don't exist.

 

Which of these two are easier to disprove?

 

Well with the first one, no matter how many time I look and not find a Unicorn, it could just be because I am not looking in the right location, or they are just really good at hiding.

 

However, with the second phrasing, all it would take is for a single unicorn to be found, and it would disprove that proposition. Therefore, this is the phrasing that is most easy to disprove.

 

Lets not apply this to big foot.

 

We can phrase this as:

1) Big Foot Exists.

or

2) Big Foot doesn't exist.

 

Which is the easier proposition to disprove? As with the proposition about Unicorns, it is the second one.

 

One instance where scientists being part of a research party would be a big help would be if a biologist & an expert in outdoor acoustics was along & a vocalization was heard.

No, the best you could hope for (ie if Big Foot really does exist) is that the biologist says that they can't identify the animal (but that by no means proves that it is big foot, or even an unknown animal, just that the biologist would not be able to identify what it is).

 

When biologists use calls to identify an animal, it is because it is known that a specific type of animal uses a specific call. If that specific call is heard, then they know that it was that animal that made that call.

[JohnB]

wvbig. Next time you go out looking, take a 30.06 and kill one of them. If you happen to see more than one, kill them all. Then bring the carcasses in for dissection. Simple really.

 

Blood, bones and hair samples are no good as proof because there is no reference for them. Just kill one and bring it in.

You keep moving the goal post

From my reading of this thread, he's not the only one.

 

On the quality of "proofs", both sides have a point here. wvbig does indeed have to prove his case as he made the claim, however the sceptical side can't just yell "hoax" and demand more. They have to prove the hoax. The video concerning the Sonoma incident is an excellent case in point.

 

Looking at the video "proofs" in order.

1. The subject refused to meet with investigators. To me that's a really big hint that it's a hoax. Somebody had something to hide.

2. "There is a bunching in the left arm." This is a statement of fact, not proof of hoax. (Although it may be evidence of a poorly fitting costume) Either way it does not prove a hoax.

3. "Doubling back is something a creature in the wild doesn't do." Bullshit.

3. Amateurish website. This is evidence of a hoax? Exactly how?

4. He took a picture of his dog. Ah yes, all great hoaxers have pictures of their dog. (Although super villains generally have fluffy white cats.)

5. The mud in the boot. "We're supposed to believe....." A really convincing argument there. If the video author doesn't believe it, then it must be fake, right? Argument from incredulity. Not proof of hoax.

6. The hair. "I don't want to guess where they got this picture from." And this proves what?

7. Penn and Teller admitted the hoax. I have no reason to doubt this, but why is it the last point? Every snide remark above is superfluous.

 

The entire video could have been 15 seconds long showing the footage and Penn and Tellers admission. So, of 7 points of "proof", one is relevent (No 7), one is a good hint (No 1) and the rest is pure garbage.

 

mooey, you gave 6 links in that post. 3 referrred to the same incident and are redundant. (I'll add that when that blew up I perused the bigfoot type forums out of curiousity and found the whole thing viewed very sceptically.) The Sonora one I've covered, so that leaves two.

 

The one for the the Committee for Sceptical Inquiry seems to be pointing out the need for better proof if the idea is to be taken seriously, which is fair enough. Although it does point to a Catch 22 situation.

It also highlights a basic methodological problem that plagues all Bigfoot research: The lack of a standard measure. We know what a bear track looks like; if we find a track that we suspect was left by a bear, we can compare it to one we know was left by a bear. But there are no undisputed Bigfoot specimens by which to compare new evidence.

So if we had a proven sample of bigfoot tracks we could compare new samples to them and thereby prove bigfoot exists. Does anyone else see the problem here?

 

I assume you used this link because perhaps Dr. Moody is a forensic biologist? Presumably he knows what he is talking about?

Although he dismisses most reports of Bigfoot in the eastern United States, Moody said he thinks that 8-foot-tall, 500-pound beasts with 8-inch-wide feet could be living deep in the mountains out West.

 

Forensic evidence has been found: primate hair and footprints with dermal ridges, which are similar to the ridges on fingerprints.

 

I might add that "It's just common sense" is a damn poor argument. It can be used to justify any position regardless of logical basis.

 

There is an interesting dichotomy here from my POV. The level of proof being asked for is far higher than anyone would apply in real life. Followed logically, grainy footage of someone looking through a window and footprints outside the window would not constitute proof that some unknown person was actually at the window. That's just ludicrous. Any person here shown that evidence would feel quite justified in asking the police round to have a look. (Which is all wv seems to be really asking for, people with the relevent expertise to "Come and have a look".)

 

How much theoretical physics can meet the levels of proof demanded in this thread?

We skeptics are skeptical of everything.

So the Higgs doesn't exist? Dark Matter? We haven't seen either yet, but I ain't gonna be the first to call those looking for them nasty names or suggest that they're on a fools errand.

 

Bottom line. Cut the guy some slack. While SFN is a science forum, this particular sub forum has "Speculations" in it's title. In the first instance, the standards of proof don't need to be so high.

 

And thanks for that answer I_A. I hadn't considered the population size problem.