Bigfoot?

[wvbig]

Let us be absolutely clear here. An eye witness report that someone saw a horse is FAR different than an eyewitness report that someone saw a unicorn.

 

We have truck loads of evidence that there are things called "gorillas" that actually exist, interact with the environment, and reproduce.

 

We have zero evidence that there is this thing called bigfoot, at least nothing which goes beyond wish thinking and soft interpretation.

 

 

Therefore, claiming to see a gorilla is acceptable and claiming to see bigfoot is not.

 

 

Also, my girlfried has a book that says there is this kid named Harry Potter who can do magic and fly on brooms. Just because it's in a book (hmm... come to think of it, there's also a movie!) doesn't make it a fact based in reality.

 

 

This is trivial stuff. I'm not understanding why you continue trying to force a square peg through a round hole.

Ok. When was the article documenting the encounters with Gorillas first taken seriously? Also, are you really comparing fictional books & movies to non-fiction books & documentaries?

[iNow]

Yes.

 

Also, we didn't need a movie or article to allow us to take gorillas seriously since we've been living alongside them for hundreds of thousands of years.

[mooeypoo]

Okay back up back up.

YOU made a statement.

YOU have the burden of proof.

 

Whatever is or isn't proven on an entirely unrelated statement has absolutely no bearing on the FACT that

YOU can't prove anything you stated.

while YOU hold the burden of proof because YOU made that statement in the first place in this thread.

 

Own up to it and stop jumping on every opportunity to argue a completely unrelated point; the POINT is that you stated something that is unproven and ignored your burden of proof, and you now try to use another issue to try and move the responsibility of proof over.

 

It won't work, and it doesn't work.

 

Bigfoot is bunk. Wanna prove it? PROVE BIGFOOT. Disproving anything else will only show that whatever else might be false, not that Bigfoot is true.

 

Read some about the scientific method, will ya? We're a *SCIENCE* forum, which you have chosen to post in. Ii would assume you'd read the rules and expectations.

 

~moo

[wvbig]

<sigh>

 

I know this. I also know the being able to repeat a result part is collecting more than one specimen. But I'm not clear on what kind of an experiment applies when it comes to trying to prove the existence of an animal unless it would be something like putting out something for food that only the new animal will eat. But that is obviously putting the cart before the horse. Any advice will be appreciated:-)

 

Yes.

 

Also, we didn't need a movie or article to allow us to take gorillas seriously since we've been living alongside them for hundreds of thousands of years.

Oh really? Is that why stories of the Gorilla were laughed at just as much as stories of Bigfoot are now until there were actual remains to examine?

 

Okay back up back up.

YOU made a statement.

YOU have the burden of proof.

 

Whatever is or isn't proven on an entirely unrelated statement has absolutely no bearing on the FACT that

YOU can't prove anything you stated.

while YOU hold the burden of proof because YOU made that statement in the first place in this thread.

 

Own up to it and stop jumping on every opportunity to argue a completely unrelated point; the POINT is that you stated something that is unproven and ignored your burden of proof, and you now try to use another issue to try and move the responsibility of proof over.

 

It won't work, and it doesn't work.

 

Bigfoot is bunk. Wanna prove it? PROVE BIGFOOT. Disproving anything else will only show that whatever else might be false, not that Bigfoot is true.

 

Read some about the scientific method, will ya? We're a *SCIENCE* forum, which you have chosen to post in. Ii would assume you'd read the rules and expectations.

 

~moo

 

You don't honestly expect me to track down & repost here, every single piece of evidence ever collected over the past 80+ years & every single analysis ever done on each piece do you?

[iNow]

You don't honestly expect me to track down & repost here, every single piece of evidence ever collected over the past 80+ years & every single analysis ever done on each piece do you?

No, not every piece of evidence. Only those which prove your assertions true, and which are valid and repeatable.

[mooeypoo]

I know this. I also know the being able to repeat a result part is collecting more than one specimen. But I'm not clear on what kind of an experiment applies when it comes to trying to prove the existence of an animal unless it would be something like putting out something for food that only the new animal will eat. But that is obviously putting the cart before the horse. Any advice will be appreciated:-)

 

Oh really? Is that why stories of the Gorilla were laughed at just as much as stories of Bigfoot are now until there were actual remains to examine?

 

 

 

You don't honestly expect me to track down & repost here, every single piece of evidence ever collected over the past 80+ years & every single analysis ever done on each piece do you?

 

I'll settle with two *real* evidences. How's that?

 

About your other point, I think we're getting somewhere finally. You don'tknow what the requirements are of identifying a new species -- that's a great question. Let's first find them out, and then we know what we would need to formulate in order to see if bigfoot exists.

 

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Continue to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

Then, after you get the basic principles, go on to do more research on this if you want, in actual *real* scientific resources (wikipedia is good for a rough and simple start).

 

Then and only then can we go on to formulate what type of evidence you need to supply to prove that there is, indeed, a completely separate and new species called Bigfoot.

 

I can assure you, though, that the method of finding them does *not* require just putting a unique food.

People got them on cam, did they not? Plucking a damn hair from it should NOT be that difficult. I could shoot (and hit) a tranquilizer gun on that blurry animal while standing next to the camera, then I'd have all teh proof in the world, wouldn't I.. but why wasn't that done?

 

It's illogical to think that this animal is absolutely and completely illusive.

Edited September 9, 2008 by mooeypoo

[Klaynos]

Yes.

 

Also, we didn't need a movie or article to allow us to take gorillas seriously since we've been living alongside them for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

In "modern science" not until there was skeleton sections, most notably skulls collected in the mid 1800's before that little interest was really paid to such things...

 

Ok. When was the article documenting the encounters with Gorillas first taken seriously? Also, are you really comparing fictional books & movies to non-fiction books & documentaries?

 

I used the wrong quote above...

 

Big foot is a LARGE mammal in a relatively densely populated area, there would be significant evidence by now imo...

[mooeypoo]

If not the animal itself, then bones. Poop. Bite marks. Dead animals with their heads bitten off... anything....

[wvbig]

If not the animal itself, then bones. Poop. Bite marks. Dead animals with their heads bitten off... anything....

Well as I stated at the very beginning, there have been scat samples found. Scat samples from an omnivore that so far have defied a conclusive link to any known animal. One such sample was found by researcher Ken Gerhard on a farm in Texas that has been owned by the same family for many many years & the current owner has hunted on it for many years. He is quite certain there are no bears or big cats on the property. I know it's not proof. But when you combine that with tracks, sightings, destruction of deer feeders, stick formations that can't be accidents of nature, and a lack of bear & cat tracks, it's highly suggestive in my opinion.

This all was chronicled on a documentary called "Bigfoot Hunters" I'll contact him to see if there is an article that goes along with it for you all to read if you wish.

[mooeypoo]

Well as I stated at the very beginning, there have been scat samples found. Scat samples from an omnivore that so far have defied a conclusive link to any known animal. One such sample was found by researcher Ken Gerhard on a farm in Texas that has been owned by the same family for many many years & the current owner has hunted on it for many years. He is quite certain there are no bears or big cats on the property. I know it's not proof. But when you combine that with tracks, sightings, destruction of deer feeders, stick formations that can't be accidents of nature, and a lack of bear & cat tracks, it's highly suggestive in my opinion.

This all was chronicled on a documentary called "Bigfoot Hunters" I'll contact him to see if there is an article that goes along with it for you all to read if you wish.

 

And as I have stated countless times, it's not enough that you SAY so.

 

Post a reference. You don't have to post a million, if there are millions. All you need to do is post ONE reference for each claim you make. If the reference is scientific (hence, it's not subjective, it's a repeatable experiment, it's a substantiated observation, etc etc), then you're good.. if it's not, you would have to look for another one.

 

It's not our responsibility to look up proofs for you, and it's not our habit to just believe claims out of thin air.

 

Reference your claims and take charge of the debate.

[insane_alien]

I know it's not proof. But when you combine that with tracks, sightings, destruction of deer feeders, stick formations that can't be accidents of nature, and a lack of bear & cat tracks, it's highly suggestive in my opinion.

 

you do realise that since you even admit its not proof and then go on to state things you have admitted are also not proof and say that when they are put together then it is proof is a logical fallacy.

 

0+0+0+0+0+0+...+0=0

[wvbig]

you do realise that since you even admit its not proof and then go on to state things you have admitted are also not proof and say that when they are put together then it is proof is a logical fallacy.

 

0+0+0+0+0+0+...+0=0

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! How many times do I have to keep saying this? Neither I nor any of my colleagues are saying any of the evidence is proof. Just that it warrants further investigation.

[insane_alien]

So, you have no proof, no evidence , no indication, statistical analyses that are decidedly not in your favour and that to you adds up to 'requires further investigation'

[mooeypoo]

"Grrrrr" ?

 

You do remember you're in a science forums, and not a fantasy forum, right?

 

We are quite vigorous when it comes down to our peer review, as we should be. Perhaps you should re-read the rules of the forum.

 

--

 

Okay, wvbig, here's an analogy for you. Case study:

 

 

• I hear noises in the middle of the night almost every day, at weird intervals. They sound inhuman and weird.
  
• Sometimes things just fall off the shelves and break on the floor whenever, with absolutely no visible cause.
  
• Food disappears from my pantry, and I find empty - or semi empty - bags on the floor either in or out of the pantry.
  
• My windows rattle when it's windy outside.
  
• When my lights went out the other day, I could swear I heard foot steps in my apartment. When the lights came back up, I heard chewing sounds.. I walked over to my living room and as I was about to look at the cabinet, there was an awful noise and books just fell out of the top shelf.
  

This warrants further investigation, indeed.

 

I conclude that there is a strong indication of a ghost in my apartment. I panic. I start believing in ghosts and go see a medium to send it out.

 

My friend comes over, checkes the pantry, and finds a rat.

 

What you did in the previous posts, my friend, is taken a series of events (some of them unrelated), decided they weren't investigated (which is false; I know of at least three "bigfoot investigators" that gave answers to many of these so-called 'proofs'), and stated that the conclusion is that Bigfoot exists.

 

The range of possibilities for whatever is causing these series of alleged 'weird things' that you posted is bigger than just Bigfoot. It can go from El Chupacabra to kids playing a hoax, to little green aliens who molest cows. Bigfoot is not the only "logical" conclusion out of what you presented.

 

It's just YOUR conclusion.

 

Which is why you need to supply evidence, and why just stating weird things that happen does not make your Bigfoot hypothesis any more logical. At all.

 

There is such a thing as Occham's Razor, which states that in the case that there are 2 competing theories, both fitting the environment and situation, the simple one is probably true. Unless there is evidence - EVIDENCE - to prove otherwise. Note: Not hypothesis, EVIDENCE.

 

Weirdass things happen that I can't explain.

Option #1: An animal no one has seen for millenia, cannot be caught properly or like any other animal, acts and behaves inconsistently and in manners that are different than any other animals, but is stupid enough to be caught on camera numerous times. No bones were found of it, though its existence is hypothesized for at least a hundred years and more, and no other physical evidence exists.

Option #2: A nice fantastical story, like that of the unicorn, taken advantage of for fame and money. In other words: Hoax.

 

You tell me.

[wvbig]

Here is a link to some photos of possible tracks, scat, & stick structures:http://www.flickr.com/photos/22265802@N02/sets/72157603574305126/show/

And here are the links to each section of the Monsterquest episode detailing the analysis of the Skookum Cast & the two-pronged analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin film I mentioned in the beginning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VieSSGjh6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0s34Gk-f8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn6R9bjm_W=&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTRj2CEo7A8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFUD1EoET1M&feature=related

[iNow]

Yawn.

 

 

I already know HOW this thread will end. I guess the question now is WHEN it will.

[wvbig]

Yawn.

 

 

I already know HOW this thread will end. I guess the question now is WHEN it will.

Did you even bother to click on the links?

[Phi for All]

Did you even bother to click on the links?

Yes, parts 1 & 3 have malformed video IDs.

[wvbig]

Yes, parts 1 & 3 have malformed video IDs.

I'm sorry. Try this one. It's a page with all 5 video segments on it:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B09FB3C4EE6B3228

 

And here is a link to a page with all 5 video segments of a Monsterquest episode in which a hair & some tissue were collected from a screwboard: http://http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4499CEAEA405E46F

 

Here is also a link to a page with articles written by scientists such as Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Fahrenbach & others. This page also contains links to other articles.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/DTrapp/bigfoot.htm

[iNow]

I could share some links and videos about leprechauns if you'd like.

[wvbig]

Did you even watch the video? The feet are FLAT. They have no arch and no toes. They look nothing like an ape foot(human or otherwise). In fact, they look like the padded feet of a costume. That combined with the extremely NON-apelike heel seems to point towards the patterson video being fake. Not to mention the way it walks.

I meant to reply to this earlier. You don't even know what dermal ridges are do you? lol They are fingerprints, toe prints, etc...

 

I could share some links and videos about leprechauns if you'd like.

Links to videos & articles offering evidence beyond eye witness reports that leprechauns are real? I'm calling your bluff. Lets see them

[mooeypoo]

I meant to reply to this earlier. You don't even know what dermal ridges are do you? lol They are fingerprints, toe prints, etc...

You haven't answered his claims, though.

[wvbig]

You haven't answered his claims, though.

Actually I did answer his claim about the subject of the film having no toes. That's preposterous. Everybody else can see them plainly enough. And if he or any of the rest of you had bothered to read & watch the resources I posted the links to, you would all know that nobody is arguing the point of Bigfoot being flat-footed. Same old story. Science asks for evidence & then when it's presented to them, even by their own people, they choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit into their pre-conceived notions.

Edited September 11, 2008 by wvbig
Typo

[mooeypoo]

Actually I did answer his claim about the subject of the film having no toes. That's preposterous. Everybody else can see them plainly enough.

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.

 

And if he or any of the rest of you had bothered to read & watch the resources I posted the links to, you would all know that nobody is arguing the point of Bigfoot being flat-footed. Same old story. Science asks for evidence & then when it's presented to them, even by their own people, they choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit into their pre-conceived notions.

 

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.

Edited September 11, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Links to videos & articles offering evidence beyond eye witness reports that leprechauns are real? I'm calling your bluff. Lets see them

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.