Bigfoot?

[mooeypoo]

JohnB, you have a few good points, but the main problem, at least in my point of view, is that we've already dealt with this before on this forum -- with these exact videos. We've pointed it out, too.

 

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

 

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.

Actually, that's a bit unfair. The scientific community *is* skeptical of Dark Matter, and the Higgs *doesn't yet* exist, until proven to exist. They're both considered a hypothesis.

 

But the scientific community holds standards for what a hypothesis is, too. Hypothesis is not just shot out of thin air. It needs to have basis in reality and supporting evidence.

 

The scientific community didn't accept the hypotheses as true. It still doesn't. But these hypotheses have enough supporting evidence to them to warrant an investigation where they are ASSUMED.

 

Bigfoot does not.

 

And as I have poitned out, there are first a few things to state and prove BEFORE bigfoot can enter that realm. Things that weren't presented at all. Instead, the matter of a video (which, btw, as I've stated also, is never good enough as proof. Ever. It's *always* on the realm of 'supporting' evidence, and requires more proof) was constatntly repeated.

 

There's not much here that will warrant the idea transforming into a hypothesis, let alone proving bigfoot's existence.

 

There might be, if the OP would find more supporting evidence for his idea. But he didn't.

[JohnB]

mooeypoo, it wasn't really about the video from my POV.

 

Everybody demands different levels of evidence depending on their preconcieved ideas. This is a purely subjective decision. I was more trying to remind people of that.

 

As you say, using dark matter was a bit unfair. Here's a couple of other things that cannot satisfy the level of proof that you are demanding, yet I doubt that you would deny their existence. (I certainly don't.)

 

1. Triremes. On an objective level, the only evidence for their existence is drawings on walls and pottery and accounts of their use. Pictures and anecdotal evidence. We have not found one single piece of wood from one of these vessels.

2. The ancient egyptian "Nemes" headdress. Yep, we've never found an example of that very distinctive headgear either.

 

The reason I bothered to deconstruct the Sonora debunking was to demonstrate that from the "sceptical" POV the level of evidence required to "debunk" is sometimes quite poor, yet is often accepted unquestioningly. If that video did not have point 7, Penn and Tellers admission, (which BTW no evidence was offered to prove their admission, just the claim was made) none of the other points are strong enough to demonstrate a hoax.

 

This is exactly the thing that the "believers" were accused of in this thread.

 

If I may digress with a similar example. (And without getting into a discussion about the bloody things:-)) Crop Circles.

 

These became big in the 1970s, with all sorts of explanations. In 1991 Doug Bower and Dave Chorley claimed to be the hoaxers. Problem solved, next case. What is interesting is that their claims were accepted without question by the "sceptical" side. No-one asked them to demonstrate their ability and prove their claim and AFAIK they never did. They did show how to do a simple circle in broad daylight but never repeated the demonstration in the dark using a complex pattern. IOW, their claim did not meet the proof test either, yet was uncritically accepted.

 

As an aside, I think that circle making must now classify as a true artform, some are quite beautiful.Link.

 

We as humans have a tendency to view items that reinforce our beliefs with a far less critical eye than we do those things that confound our beliefs. It is a purely subconscious and normal thing. I guess I was really trying to remind people of this fact.

[mooeypoo]

JohnB -- I agree with the concept of what you're saying, but I differ with you on one critical point: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

I actually wanted to write this reasoning a bit more thoroughly and ended up writing it for the "Expanding Earth" thread, which works under the same concept.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=435220&postcount=22

 

I see what you're saying here, but I think that this point about being rigorous should stand in light of the quite extraordinary claim that is being made here.

[JohnB]

Firstly, my compliments on a great post in that thread.

JohnB -- I agree with the concept of what you're saying, but I differ with you on one critical point: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Actually I think we simply differ on the purely subjective opinion of the definition of "extraordinary". What is extraordinary about a claim that there may exist (in areas that are largely unexplored) an unknown creature? That this creature may be a hominid is certainly unusual, but extraordinary?

 

If such a creature had even rudimentary intelligence, then it would know that interacting with human beings will be very bad for it's survival and so would try to avoid contact. Personally I find the claim that such a creature could not exist in the tens of thousands of unexplored square miles available to be rather extraordinary. After all, felons don't seem to have too much trouble avoiding those actively seeking them if in difficult terrain.

 

That such a creature might exist I find possible if unlikely, but certainly not extraordinary.

 

Hence the use of the word extraordinary is purely subjective dependent upon the person and the topic involved. I must add that I can in no way prove that your use of the word, while different from mine, is in any way wrong.

[I_Pwn_Crackpots]

Fir

If such a creature had even rudimentary intelligence, then it would know that interacting with human beings will be very bad for it's survival and so would try to avoid contact. Personally I find the claim that such a creature could not exist in the tens of thousands of unexplored square miles available to be rather extraordinary. After all, felons don't seem to have too much trouble avoiding those actively seeking them if in difficult terrain.

 

It's pretty damned difficult and hugely unlikely that an entire species of hominids, apparently located all over the U.S., could remain hidden from scientists (or from the general public) like that. And leave no fossils whatsoever of it's evolution. At the very least we should be able to find a corpse, a skeleton, or a footprint here or there every once in a while. The apparent lack of such things is a big giveaway that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

 

The existence of Bigfoot therefore is an extraordinary claim, and one that needs extraordinary evidence.

Edited September 16, 2008 by I_Pwn_Crackpots

[Edtharan]

If such a creature had even rudimentary intelligence, then it would know that interacting with human beings will be very bad for it's survival and so would try to avoid contact.

The only way it could know this is if it had interacted with humans first. But, if it had interacted enough to know this, then we would have evidence of its existence (skins, etc). As we don't have this evidence, it indicates that if BF did exist, then it has not interacted enough with humans to learn that humans are to be avoided, and so would not be avoiding us...

 

It is pretty well documented that animals that have not had contact with humans have never learnt to avoid us. An example is: The Dodo.

 

So unless BF has a human level of intelligence, can understand our behaviours (even though being a completely different species - a trick not even humans are good at, but we can do it to some degree), then this scenario is extremely unlikely.

 

That this creature may be a hominid is certainly unusual, but extraordinary?

Based on creature size and basic physiology (warm blooded and such), we can work out how much food it would need to survive. We can also work out how large a population size would be needed to avoid inbreeding (for humans it is about 1000 individuals with carefully selected breeding).

 

Using this, we can work out what population density is needed for Big Foots (or is that Big Feet ) to survive as a species.

 

Based on the locomotion speeds seen in videos and derived from track analysis, we can work out how far they could move (it would be about that of humans).

 

Despite the size of the areas available, it means that individuals must have a certain density to survive. The size of the area is not really a factor, except in the calculation of the total population.

 

However, population density is the factor that determines how hard they are to locate.

 

Using Capture-Recapture systems you can determine the population density (essentially you look at how often the animal in question is re-sighted over a period of time and this translates into a rough estimation of the number of individuals in an area).

 

Based on this Capture-Recapture, travel speeds and required population densities, Big Foot does not have the requisite numbers needed to maintain a viable breeding population.

 

So either they are all inbred for hundreds of years, extinct, or never existed.

 

If they were inbred, then they will be suffering from multiple genetic abnormalities and eventual extinction.

 

If they are extinct or never existed, then any modern sighting can not actually be of Big Foot.

 

After all, felons don't seem to have too much trouble avoiding those actively seeking them if in difficult terrain.

A felon is a single individual that also shares the same mental abilities of other humans (we can know what other humans are thinking). For Big Foot to exist there needs to be a population of many thousands (as a minimum), if not much greater.

[mooeypoo]

Another point about this entire subject that I, personally, find extremely weird and makes the whole thing lean towards the "extraordinary" is that there's always talk about THE bigfoot; not "bigfoot" as a species, but as a ONE bigfoot - one animal, one sighting, never younger, always a male, and always talked about and refered to as a single being.

 

That's hardly the way new species are being talked about or examined; even when researchers go to the depths of unknown territories, the thought is always about a new SPECIES, which makes the actual reserch more about finding its group, its family habits, its hiding places, the evidence of young, etc etc. But it seems that bigfoot is treated as a single "monster", like the Loch Ness monster, more than like an undiscovered species.

 

~moo

[JohnB]

Using Capture-Recapture systems you can determine the population density (essentially you look at how often the animal in question is re-sighted over a period of time and this translates into a rough estimation of the number of individuals in an area).

 

Based on this Capture-Recapture, travel speeds and required population densities, Big Foot does not have the requisite numbers needed to maintain a viable breeding population.

I wasn't aware we'd captured one.

 

Edtharan, I'm not arguing for Bigfoot, you know. I'm arguing against what I see as a double standard in evidence requirements, bigfoot just happens to be the topic. (And the different versions of extraordinary.)

 

Consider these two statements;

1. There may be an unknown species of creature in huge, largely unexplored regions.

2. There are no unknown creatures in huge, largely unexplored regions.

 

I find the second to be the more extraordinary. On bigfoot, I'll allow videos and footprint casts as evidence that there might be something. If someone wants to change that "might" to an "is", then they need to come up with a body.

 

Mooey, I think it's just a convention of phrasing, nothing more. People mean species, but talk in the singular. Odd, I know.

 

It's like the expansion of the Universe. We always look "out there" to see it, but if you think about it, it's happening everywhere. If you sat at your computer for a million years, you'd be 6 inches further away. Or dark matter, we see the effects of clouds of the stuff but why should it all be "out there". It should be spread throughout the Universe, logically, some of it should be passing through the space between you and the screen you're looking at. We know both these things are happening right here, right now, but we think of them as happening "out there", a vast distance away.

 

I think it's the same phraseological phenomenon.

[mooeypoo]

JohnB - you make good points and my disagreement is again partial but I am in the middle of work so I will have to answer a bit later.. for now, I found this to be extremely relevant, while quite amusing (and making a good point, too): http://bootfoot.wordpress.com/

 

enjoy it

[Edtharan]

I wasn't aware we'd captured one.

Capture does not necessarily mean "put in a cage". It means pictures, hair samples (with DNA), footprints, or any other method that provides evidence of existence.

 

Edtharan, I'm not arguing for Bigfoot, you know. I'm arguing against what I see as a double standard in evidence requirements, bigfoot just happens to be the topic. (And the different versions of extraordinary.)

Even if we allow for it not to be an extraordinary phenomena, the evidence for big foot is not conclusive enough.

 

You have used examples of other animals as examples of a double standard, however, this is not the case. With those other animals, ther eis massive amounts of data that proves that they actually exist. these other examples is the far less extrordninary claim that these animals are in that particular area.

 

With Big Foot, we need to establish its existence first.

 

This has been done in the past with real animals. When the Platypus was first discovered, it was though to be a hoax. They even had a skin of one (which is far more than we have for big foot), and it was still thought to be a hoax.

 

It was an extraordinary claim that such an animal actually existed, it was a mammal, it laid eggs, had a duck's bill and a beaver's tail. It was completely preposterous.

 

However, it was only when a live specimen was captured that people actually could accept this claim of a creature like the Platypus actually existed.

 

So if you want to compare a double standard, lets compare Big Foot with the discovery of the Platypus.

 

With the Platypus, they had hair samples, footprints, images (drawings, but from respected naturalists that were not though to make things up as would be considered equivalent to photographic or video evidence today).

 

So in essence they had all the evidence that you have claimed for big foot, but they even had more, they had the eggs, they had the skins, and even skeletons.

 

But they still though the platypus was a hoax.

 

So they had MORE evidence for the existence of the platypus than we have for big foot and they still though the platypus was a hoax.

 

Sorry, there is no double standard at all. The evidence we have for big foot is less than the evidence that they had for the platypus when they still though of it as a hoax.

 

So, even if we assume that Big Foot is not more extraordinary than a platypus, then it STILL fails the need for evidence.

[JohnB]

You have used examples of other animals as examples of a double standard,

Actually I didn't. I used Triremes and the Nemes headdress.

With Big Foot, we need to establish its existence first.

I'm not that far along. To me all there is, is enough to allow the statement that "There might be something there." To go past that requires much more and better evidence. (That currently doesn't exist.)

 

Your illustration with the Platypus really shows what I'm trying to say. It stops being about the evidence and is about belief systems. "Extraordinary" is subjective, not objective. Science is supposed to be objective, not subject to the belief systems of observers.

 

The whole "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to me has no place in science as it allows the bar to be raised or lowered depending on the opinion of those adjudicating the evidence. It is this that allows the cry of "hoax" to be accepted without proof.

 

That's why I took the time to deconstruct the debunking in Mooeypoos link. You'll note that the makers of that video did not even remotely prove the first video was a hoax, although they did provide some evidence that it might be. Their main point was that they said Penn and Teller admitted the hoax but provided no evidence to back it up. So the bar for the standard of evidence to "prove" a hoax is so low it could be used in a limbo event.

 

It is this mindset I'm against. The same thing pops up in archaeology. The sphinx is attributed to Khafre and other theories need to provide "extraordinary evidence". Why? Where is the damn evidence to support the original theory? The sum total of supporting evidence for the original claim is;

1. It's near Khafres pyramid. (Which means it's near others as well)

2. We think the face looks like the face on an 8" high statue we found in a pit in the Sphinx Temple.

Yet the idea that maybe Khafre didn't build it is somehow "extraordinary".

 

Bigfoot doesn't enter into it. Just because someone doesn't like the evidence doesn't allow them to demand the bar be raised. Frankly I don't care if bigfoot exists or not. If people want to spend some nice time in the woods looking for it, that's fine. If they find something great, if they don't, then they can always go back next year. I'm not going to call them names for looking though.

 

Just like I'm not going to laugh at the physicist who spends years looking for dark matter. (I'd even support increased funding) If he finds it, wonderful, if not then it's still a plus, as we would then know we need a new theory.

 

It's said that Thomas Edison tried 2,000 different things before he got the incandescent bulb to work. He said "I did not fail 2,000 times. I just found 2,000 ways not to make a lightbulb."

 

So let the bigfooters and the Dark Matter searchers go for it. They may discover 2,000 different ways not to find what they are looking for, on the other hand, they may work out just one way to find it.

[Zebbygoss]

People have been searching for bigfoot for so long now.. He/she/it does not exist. If it did there would be a number of them because there cannot just be one. and things that exist on land cannot hide forever like bigfoot. If we were able to discover atoms I think we would have caught a giant monkey like creature running in the woods by now. Dont you think??

[Klaynos]

IMO there is such a high human population density, and notably hunters in NA that there would be a body by now.

[insane_alien]

exactly, if the sightings were in a very unaccessible area such as the middle of the brazillian rain forest or whatever then i could understand the lack of evidence but it is supposed to exist across the entire north american continent. and given americans penchant for hunting its not as if there are vast tracts of uncharted lands never set foot upon be humans before.

[Bignose]

JohnB,

 

the issue is that once something becomes easy to fake, then it can always be called out as a possible hoax.

 

I think that a good example is photographs. There was a time when it was very rare for someone to have the knowledge and ability to fake a photograph. It was possible, but pretty rare. I mean the actual photo itself, not just taking a photo of something faked.

 

But, today, with photoshop and similar programs so readily available, and printers that can print photo-quality images so readily available, having a photo in hand is almost meaningless. A clear photo of Bigfoot 50 years ago probably would have convinced many people. A clear photo of Bigfoot today is almost meaningless. You would have to go to extraordinary measures to prove that a photograph of Bigfoot isn't faked.

 

And, this is true with any other evidence as technology progresses. If someday designer DNA is easy to manufacture, then a DNA sample of Bigfoot wouldn't be convincing.

 

Once something can be faked, any evidence -- yes, even genuine evidence -- doesn't carry a great deal of weight because of the possibility of hoaxing.

 

That's why a lot of the so-called evidence is dismissed much easier than it may otherwise be. Because the onus is back on the provider to show that it is genuine. And once someone has admitted that it is faked, why waste any more time on it?

 

Finally, sure, the term "extraordinary" means different things to different people. How could it not? But, the idea is sound. Extraordinary as in beyond just the ordinary. People with different levels of expertise are going to different ideas of what extraordinary may mean. Back to the previous example, a person who doesn't know about photoshop may be convinced with a photograph. A biologist may remian unconvinced until a DNA sample is provided. The people on this forum aren't convinced with some blurry movies and "eyewitness" accounts. We require more. Those are just "ordinary" to us and are unconvincing.

[Edtharan]

Your illustration with the Platypus really shows what I'm trying to say. It stops being about the evidence and is about belief systems. "Extraordinary" is subjective, not objective. Science is supposed to be objective, not subject to the belief systems of observers.

 

The whole "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to me has no place in science as it allows the bar to be raised or lowered depending on the opinion of those adjudicating the evidence. It is this that allows the cry of "hoax" to be accepted without proof.

Actually "extraordinary" is not subjective in this case. "Extraordinary" is a sound bite from someone (I don't actually know who) explaining that the more unlikely an occurrence, the more rigorous the evidence needed.

 

The quote: "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" is just a way of putting that concept in an easily rememberable line.

 

So the claim that Big Foot can have existed without leaving any rigorous evidence, despite many people looking for it and that known biology states that there needs to be a significant population of Big Foots (Feet) is not very likely. So this requires the "extraordinary" evidence.

 

Also, the evidence is not "extraordinary" in termes of the wow factor or anything like that. Instead, it is that the evidence need to explain why, despite the lack of sold evidence, that big foot has avoided leaving evidence.

 

Could it be that they are intelligent, or at least smart enough to know to avoid humans? Well then you need to provide evidence for that, not just speculate about it. You would even have to show that they are intelligent enough to know what a camera is, and not only that, know what a camera trap is (an automatic camera that uses infra-red detectors to sense motion and film the thing that is moving).

 

Could it be that they don't have a large population density? Well you have to show that they can survive with a population lower than what genetic requires to avoid inbreeding, or that they can travel long distances (to the next group) and avoid all detection.

 

It has nothing to do with belief and it is not subjective.

 

Their main point was that they said Penn and Teller admitted the hoax but provided no evidence to back it up.

I ma not sure which video you are talking about, but if I understand this correctly then the people who made the video claim it is a hoax, and this is not sufficient for you to accept it as a hoax? Might they have intended to make a hoax, but the guy in the suit got lost and a real Big Foot was actually filmed by accident?

 

This kind of reminds me of a recent event I heard about. Guy made a fake video of alien spaceships and released it on YouTube (or another video sharing website). Many people believed that it was real, and then when the guy admitted to the fake (and even included a new video that proved it was a fake), people still believed it was real (

).

 

If the people who made it say it is a fake, then it is probably a fake (oh an Penn and Teller are entertainers, not photography experts ).

 

It is this mindset I'm against. The same thing pops up in archaeology. The sphinx is attributed to Khafre and other theories need to provide "extraordinary evidence". Why? Where is the damn evidence to support the original theory? The sum total of supporting evidence for the original claim is;

It is not just that someone thought it might have been Khafre, it is also the fact that a certain level of technological knowledge and skill was required to be able to make the Sphinx. So although it might not have been Khafre himself that ordered the building of the Sphinx, it would have to have been someone around his time as they didn't have the technology and skills to do so until then. As Khafre was powerful enough to have commissioned the biggest Pyramid near it (and that seems to respect the Sphinx in both position and orientation), then it is likely that either he commissioned the Sphinx or that it was one of his close ancestors (father or grandfather) or close descendants (son or grand son).

 

So we have 5 generations to choose from and Khafre was the most wealthy and powerful. This means that it was most likely Khafre that built the Sphinx.

 

If you are going to dispute that, then you have to show that the people that you claim built the sphinx had a technological skill with stone that is not consistent with their other stone works, or that if it was built after Khafre, then you have to explain why they had lost their skill with stone (they might have been going through a "retro" phase and wanted to make the Sphinx look like it had been built by the earlier generations).

 

So, this is another case of "sound bite" confusion. The reason that "extraordinary" evidence is needed for the claim that the Sphinx was not built by Khafre is that he is the most likely person to have been able to build it. Any claim counter must therefore explain how they had knowledge outside their time (oh and dating evidence agrees with the time frame of Khafre building the Sphinx too so the counter claim also has to explain why this evidence is wrong).

 

Bigfoot doesn't enter into it. Just because someone doesn't like the evidence doesn't allow them to demand the bar be raised. Frankly I don't care if bigfoot exists or not. If people want to spend some nice time in the woods looking for it, that's fine. If they find something great, if they don't, then they can always go back next year. I'm not going to call them names for looking though.

The reason that they don't like the evidence is that it is not verifiable. As BigNose said, if evidence can be faked, then it becomes less valuable (even if it really wasn't faked). People can dress up in a monkey suit and prance around in the woods while someone films them, so this is easily faked.

 

However, actually capturing a live Big Foot, or even the carcass of a dead one (they would die of natural causes) would be far better and less easily faked evidence, hence why these would be considered more valuable than a grainy film or plaster casts of foot prints (with only a little know-how - that you need them - you could create dermal ridges on a fake foot).

 

The more unlikely your claim, the more rigorous the evidence needs to be and the harder the evidence to be to be faked (and extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence sound so much better than that).

 

Don't get so hung up on the wording of a popularised quote that you misunderstand what was trying to be said, and what really is meant.

[JohnB]

I ma not sure which video you are talking about, but if I understand this correctly then the people who made the video claim it is a hoax, and this is not sufficient for you to accept it as a hoax?

The link I was referring to was this one. The makers make the claim that Penn and Teller admitted the hoax. I have no problem with someone admitting a hoax, I have a problem with a third party making an unsupported claim that "so and so" admitted the hoax. See the difference?

 

BTW I've seen the Haiti video before. I really hope the maker lands a job in the film industry as his work is great. If you watch closely he's even spoofed the autofocus zoom. Brilliant work.

 

Concerning your points re bigfoot, I agree. The creature is unlikely for the genetic reasons you give. However, how do we know it's not in the last throws of extinction for those very reasons? It takes some generations for these problems to appear, if they exist(ed) perhaps their numbers only really dwindled since the coming of Europeans.

 

Re the Sphinx, if you have some confirmed dating evidence, I'd love to see it. All I've seen is contextual and circumstantial, even the geologists don't agree.

 

Bignose I take your point about the possibility of faking. The only difference between us is that I expect all claims to be backed by some kind of proof. It's not enough to cry "fake" as to me that is making a claim. You want to make a claim, fine, now back it up. The argument you seem to be making would not fly in a courtroom and since the level of evidence should be higher for a science, it should not fly there either.

 

Example;

Prosecution: "Your Honour, we have video footage of the defendant robbing the store."

Defense: "The video is a fake."

Judge: "Well since the video's a fake, the defendant is free to go."

 

You're demanding evidence from only one side and allowing the other a free shot with no onus of proof for their claims. Do you think this is reasonable? Any claim, even one of fraud, should be backed by proof.

 

I_A, Klaynos and Zebbygoss. Of course it's unlikely for the species to exist, I've not said otherwise. If you read my previous posts you'll see that I said that the current (rather poor) evidence is only (barely) enough to allow the claim that "something might be there". To change that "might" to an "is" requires better evidence.

 

However, part of my argument is the inconsistency displayed sometimes. Why do we ask people to get better evidence if they want us to believe them and at the same time treat them as nutters for going out and looking for the very thing we have asked for? You can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it is manifestly unfair to treat people in this fashion.

[Bignose]

So, if I claimed that I didn't have an invisible troll that lives in my attic and solved differential equations in its head, I'd have to prove that?

 

That's going to be really hard. The darn thing's invisible, after all.

 

You can't prove a negative.

 

Can you do it? I actually don't want an invisible troll living in my attic, and I'd really appreciate it if you could show me how to prove that it doesn't exist. Show how I can back up such a claim.

 

Not every single statement can be 100% backed up. That's a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to. And, it opens up way, way too many doors. Such as: no one has proved that Bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore, we should believe it does until proven otherwise.

 

The bigger point is that you want to go in the direction the evidence leads you. If I want to claim an invisible troll lives in my attic, I have to supply the evidence of that statement. I have to supply compelling evidence that what I say has merit. Someone who says that it doesn't exist just has to show why the "compelling evidence" isn't so compelling.

 

Which is what the skeptics have done in this thread. wv kept bringing up things, and the skeptics kept shooting them down. The skeptics cannot completely invalidate the evidence. 1) we don't actually have them in front of us 2) unless they can be shown to be 100% fake (i.e. Piltdown man) , it's an impossible task, anyway. All we can do is raise valid questions/issue about why the evidence isn't as compelling as some think. I.e. unknown noises cannot be automatically ascribed to a Bigfoot because we don't know what noises a Bigfoot would make. And, people who listen to noises can make mistakes. And animals make unknown or different noises all the time -- no one has cataloged every single noise that every single woodland creature can possibly make. And finally, when noise get's bounced around and reflected, it can sound differently. I.e. a noise coming out a cave can sound very different that a noise coming from an animal standing in front of you in a clearing. So, the "unknown noises" evidence has a lot of flaws and so the noises really don't support a pro-Bigfoot belief.

 

Finally, regarding this video that is claimed to be a fake: once it has been claimed to be fake, what would be the point in studying it more? It is always going to have that suspicion of doubt around it no matter what. Once a "dinosaur" bone is proven to be fake, what is the point in studying that? Does anyone still study Piltdown man? No, they are fakes. And maybe apart from studying the fakes so that we don't get fooled again, why would someone want to dig into a fake any more? It is a waste of time, with no payoff in the end.

[mooeypoo]

By the way, I must say this is one of the more productive and interesting debates I've had in a while in the Pseudoscience/Speculations forum.

It's these type of debates that make me feel I am improving my scientific thinking.

 

And I do see your point, JohnB, and I think that sometimes some of us SFNers do have requirements that are over the top.

 

But not in this case. And I think that you are doing the same, a bit, too.

 

Bignose I take your point about the possibility of faking. The only difference between us is that I expect all claims to be backed by some kind of proof. It's not enough to cry "fake" as to me that is making a claim. You want to make a claim, fine, now back it up. The argument you seem to be making would not fly in a courtroom and since the level of evidence should be higher for a science, it should not fly there either.

Two things here:

 

(1) You are right. All claims should be backed up by proof.

If we had a perfect world, we would all probably be requiring high-level proof for EVERYTHING. And the more advanced our evidence-gathering equipment is getting, the higher our requirement for evidence goes. For example, 100 years ago no one knew about the possibility of DNA tests. As a result, the threshhold to prove rape was lower - eyewittness accounts, even partial, might have been enough (or almost enough). today, however, we have DNA tests. Eyewittness account - when DNA is possible - is not enough anymore. Conclusive DNA tests is the way to go.

 

(2) You're mixing two subjects that are not quite mix'able. Courtrooms are not labs, and law is not science. For one, a courtroom is by no means a scientific investigation; a courtroom is PRESENTED with the results of such investigation and people who have no scientific understanding (be it a judge or a jury) make a decision according to the law, which relies - among other things - on freedoms and rights of people. This is by no means bad, it's just DIFFERENT. True science investigation (in a lab, for that matter, so to speak), cares not for human rights, for emotions or for ethics.

 

The *ACTIONS* that we do later might be, but the investigation itself has nothing to do with it. Here's an example: A scientific research about the differences in chromosomes (or whatever else, I'm not too good in biology) between Blacks, Asians and Caucasians might be valid scientifically, and will probably not be valid as a court case ("His urge to kill is justified by his being caucasian".. can you see this in a courtroom?).

 

Beyond that, the 'quotes' you've put forth are unfair.

Example;

Prosecution: "Your Honour, we have video footage of the defendant robbing the store."

Defense: "The video is a fake."

Judge: "Well since the video's a fake, the defendant is free to go."

If the video footage is the only presented evidence, and is shown to be fake (or, actually, is shown to have enough suspicion of 'fakeness') then yes, JohnB, the defendant will walk.

 

Why? Because there's no proof for his guilt.

 

Same here. The videos have been shown to be fake (we've given the examples and some multiple references about, if nothing else, why their validity is VERY questionable), and they are the only available evidence for bigfoot.

 

The defendant walks. There's no proof. None.

 

 

You're demanding evidence from only one side and allowing the other a free shot with no onus of proof for their claims. Do you think this is reasonable? Any claim, even one of fraud, should be backed by proof.

Yes, exactly, but that's not OUR job (the 'peer reviewers') that's the claiming-side's job. We asked for more proof and we got none more. I don't see the problem with that.

 

I_A, Klaynos and Zebbygoss. Of course it's unlikely for the species to exist, I've not said otherwise. If you read my previous posts you'll see that I said that the current (rather poor) evidence is only (barely) enough to allow the claim that "something might be there". To change that "might" to an "is" requires better evidence.

That's true, but the claim "something might be there" is ALSO a claim by itself that requires proof. It just requires less proof than claiming something IS there.

 

As an example, let us switch the term "bigfoot" with "unicorn", shall we?

 

Claim: "Unicorns exist in the world."

 

Fine claim.

But if you were an animal researcher, would you just jump out and go find it? I think not. The claim requires a bit more validity.

For example, stating it this way may help:

 

A Better Claim: "Unicorns exist in the woods of central park."

 

Okay. Now you have a direction. Still, there are unanswered questions that some more rigorous scientists might want to ask themselves before feeling like they're wasting their times with this (like how come no one has seen this animal before, and more). But no one would be against just checking this claim. It's actually not that HARD to check this claim. People would be skeptical - as they should - but sure, go ahead and check this. Examine this. Investigate.

 

What would happen, though, after 20 years of investigation without findings?

 

See, bigfoot is an oooooooold claim, and unlike my "little better" claim it's very vague, which makes it hard to check. But people DO CHECK IT. That's what drives me mad about those kind of threads -- people claim that science doesn't check these new claims when that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. From "real" scientists to "skeptical investigators" (who go about researching using rigorous methods), people HAVE checked these claims.

 

They just found nothing.

 

Nothing but disproving the "available evidence".

 

That by itself maybe not be an evidence against bigfoot, but it certainly plays a part in increasing the "extraordinary" aura it has.

 

However, part of my argument is the inconsistency displayed sometimes. Why do we ask people to get better evidence if they want us to believe them and at the same time treat them as nutters for going out and looking for the very thing we have asked for? You can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it is manifestly unfair to treat people in this fashion.

That again isn't quite fair. No one laughs at people who go check out slim-chance claims. That, actually, happens a lot in the scientific community.

 

What is done here, though, is something entirely different. People HAVE CHECKED INTO THE BIGFOOT MATTER and found nothing at all where they SHOULD have found at leas tsomething. There chances to find a new species are well existing, but the chances to find a new species that leaves absolutely no evidence for its existence other than blurry videos (which most if not all have been proven fake) for over 20 years is possibly quite ridiculous.

 

I agree with a lot of what you're saying JohnB but it seems to me that you're forgetting that the subject in this thread is not a new claim that is in need of more research. It *went through research*, and some people actually continue to go out and try to see if anything's left.

 

 

If we go back to your own analogy with the courtroom, let's think of this case: A young blonde man is accused of murdering his neighbor. No wittnesses. No blood stains. The claim comes forth because another neighbour has a blurry video that shows the victim being murdered by a blonde man. The video's extremely blurry, and the neighbor who took that video has a grudge against the accused.

 

That is, certainly, enough to get the police going on an investigation. And they do. And they investigate for an entire year and find no corroborating evidence at all that this man murdered his neighbor.

Not even evidence you would have EXPECTED to find, like bootprints on the new rug or like fingerprints, or a missing knife. Nothing at all.

 

How long would it take you, the observer in the case, to state that enough investigation time has passed, and enough "shouldve-been-but-weren't-there" evidences (things you EXPECT to find and didn't) were collected (in bigfoots case: hell, a poop sample from the area of the blurry clip! what, it went back to clean itself?? c'mon..) for you to state that the odds are that the blonde man just actually DIDN'T do it?

 

Bigfoot is looked for and saught after AROUND THE WORLD (under different names, perhaps) for over 20 years. And more.

 

People research this matter, be it scientists or skeptical groups.

 

They find no evidence at all. NOTHING. Not even things that SHOULD be found if there actually IS a species in such an area. Nothing at all.

For over 20 years.

 

I'd say that puts things under an ENTIRELY different light, wouldn't you?

 

Addition:

 

I also meant to add that the bigfoot claim - for the way it's being presented, defended and has its goalpost moved here and there by its proponents - is also unfalsifiable.

 

The claim for bigfoot's existence is not the type of claim you make when you believe of another *undiscovered species* exists. There need to be more information WITHIN THE CLAIM for it to be scientific, and therefore worth researching.

 

You *CAN* prove a negative, JohnB, you just can't prove or disprove something that is unfalsifiable.

 

But then again, an unfalsifiable claim is unscientific.

Edited September 21, 2008 by mooeypoo
multiple post merged

[Edtharan]

The makers make the claim that Penn and Teller admitted the hoax. I have no problem with someone admitting a hoax, I have a problem with a third party making an unsupported claim that "so and so" admitted the hoax. See the difference?

As these presenters are well known it would be trivial to check the validity of this claim of them admitting the Hoax. Just write them a letter (or send an email). So either that site is taking a huge gamble that no one ever write a letter or sends an email to Penn and Teller, or that they are telling the truth.

 

Also, knowing Penn and Teller, this is completely in line with what they would do, especially in light of their Show "Bull S**t".

 

So if you are in doubt about this claim, go write them a letter.

 

BTW I've seen the Haiti video before. I really hope the maker lands a job in the film industry as his work is great. If you watch closely he's even spoofed the autofocus zoom. Brilliant work.

It would make quite the portfolio piece.

 

Concerning your points re bigfoot, I agree. The creature is unlikely for the genetic reasons you give. However, how do we know it's not in the last throws of extinction for those very reasons? It takes some generations for these problems to appear, if they exist(ed) perhaps their numbers only really dwindled since the coming of Europeans.

If this was the case then the Early Europeans would have encountered it far more commonly and it would then have been documented through either written accounts, or even bodies/skeletons/skins.

 

But then humans had been living in America for quite some time, if humans were going to make it extinct, they would have had the first shot at it. The Native Americans would ahve bee competing with Big Foot for space and food (we are omnivores so we would likely share food sources even if they were vegetarians), and seen it as a food source (for example bush meat in Africa as evidence that humans will eat great apes).

 

This means that Europeans would have encountered Big Foot either in large numbers (no evidence of this) or at best, when it was well on its way to extinction (but most likely, if it did ever exist, it would have been extinct for hundreds if not thousands of years).

 

Although your ideas might sound good, in reality they are not very likely (and so need that "extraordinary" evidence).

 

Bignose I take your point about the possibility of faking. The only difference between us is that I expect all claims to be backed by some kind of proof. It's not enough to cry "fake" as to me that is making a claim. You want to make a claim, fine, now back it up. The argument you seem to be making would not fly in a courtroom and since the level of evidence should be higher for a science, it should not fly there either.

We have provided evidence that these things are faked. It might not be direct evidence but it is evidence none the less.

 

In the case of your court room, if the defence was able to produce reliable evidence that at the time the dependent was somewhere else, then their claim that the video was faked, although they didn't give direct evidence that the video was faked, then the video evidence becomes suspect.

 

However, part of my argument is the inconsistency displayed sometimes. Why do we ask people to get better evidence if they want us to believe them and at the same time treat them as nutters for going out and looking for the very thing we have asked for? You can't have it both ways. It doesn't matter what the topic is, it is manifestly unfair to treat people in this fashion.

Some people do that, and so are you. We have provided evidence, if sometimes indirect evidence, that Big Foot can't exist (or that the chances of it actually existing is so slim as to be close to non-existence).

 

We don't treat them as "Nutters" for going out and looking for evidence, they get treated as "Nutters" for the evidence that they present (that they take flimsy and sometimes evidence that has already been proven as fake as solid proof).

 

If I was to go out and use that Haiti UFO video as proof of aliens, I think that I would be considered a "Nutter" (and so I should).

[JohnB]

Bignose, (Monty Python fan, are we?) I wonder if I'm making myself clear. I've had an interest in the outre for decades and have always been interested in the methods for detecting fraud. If I may digress to UFOs for a minute, I promise it's relevent.

 

Back in the pre digital days, photos were produced and then analysed. Sceptics didn't cry "fake", they proved it. A great case was that of Billy Meier, a very lucky man. Rather than the boring "grey" aliens, he was visited by 6 foot tall shapely blondes. Anyway, he produced a number of photos of the "alien" craft. An account of the debunking can be found here. Doncha love garbage bin lids?

 

In the 1990s a fellow called Adrian Morton tried the same stunt.

Wasn't it nice for them to line up like that? But let's enhance the picture.

I guess that's a "force vortex" above them? No, just a piece of string.

 

The above examples are what I mean when say "proof of hoax" rather than "claim of hoax". I fully admit that this is much harder to do in our digital world, what with no negatives any more and photoshop.

Finally, regarding this video that is claimed to be a fake: once it has been claimed to be fake, what would be the point in studying it more? It is always going to have that suspicion of doubt around it no matter what.

On that basis, no evidence will ever be good enough. Even something authentic has only to be accused of being fake and that's it. You're setting up a situation where one side has to provide "proof of claim" and the other side does not. You couldn't run a high school debate under those rules.

And I do see your point, JohnB, and I think that sometimes some of us SFNers do have requirements that are over the top.

Mooeypoo, that's all I've been getting at. (But I'm glad you find it interesting.)

If the video footage is the only presented evidence, and is shown to be fake (or, actually, is shown to have enough suspicion of 'fakeness') then yes, JohnB, the defendant will walk.

The important phrase here is "is shown". I was following Bignoses argument to it's logical conclusion. If evidence is to be thrown out with only the cry of "fake" then nothing can ever be proven. In a courtroom or a lab. Claims of fakery should show "reasonable cause".

 

For this reason we must never let the bar fall too low for either side of any debate. Edtharan for example has been constantly providing reasons to demonstrate why the existence of bigfoot is extremely unlikely. He is keeping the bar high. If we let it fall, then we reduce the argument to "I don't believe it and therefore it is a fake". Regardless of the topic, we must never let this happen.

 

As a point of fact, I don't think we have sunk that low, but we seem to dip close occasionally. Please feel free to think of me as the prickly, irritating, nagging little voice in the back of your mind.

 

Any student of history can tell you the same things show up time and again. The ones that worry me are the ones I call "The Guardians of Rationality". All through history this mindset has acted (unintentionally) to hold us back. Using the best knowledge of their time, they try to discourage the seekers and dreamers by declaring the quests and dreams false. If you listen, you can hear the echoes of their words;

"Go to the Indies by sailing west, Columbus?"

"A horseless carriage? Preposterous."

"Fly like a bird, Mr. Wright? Rediculous."

"Pictures that talk?"

"Women voting? They aren't capable of such thought."

 

Everything we have, everything our civilisation is and everything we hope it will oneday be, we owe to the dreamers and seekers.

We fly because someone dreamed we could.

We went to the moon and fulfilled a dream over 2,000 years old because someone dreamed we could.

We abolished slavery because dreamers thought that all people should be free.

 

The list is endless. Have the dreamers been wrong? Many times. So what?

 

The break even point for a commercial goldmine is around 7 grams/tonne. They go through a tonne of dirt to find that little golden sparkle. Those precious times when the dreamers and seekers are right, those are our gold, for they enrich us far more than the mere metal ever could.

 

So as I said before, let the dreamers dream and the seekers seek, for the one time they are right is worth far more than the many times they are wrong.

 

I seem to have put some personal philosophy in. Oh well. It is for the dreamers I argue and I will do my best to hold the Guardians to the same level of proof that they demand of others.

 

Edtharan, everything you say is true, to a point. You'll notice I've always said the existence of the species is unlikely. However, just as "might" is not "is", "unlikely" is not "impossible". However, this is not the thrust of what I've been trying to get at. Consider this exchange from earlier in the thread.

Documentaries are not peer reviewed and the "scientists" could be pretty much anyone who the documentary maker wants to call a scientist.

You don't watch any Bigfoot documentaries do you? They use REAL scientists such as Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dr. John Bindernagel, Dr. Henner H. Fahrenbach, Dr. Lyn Rogers, Dr. John Myerjenski(sp?) the late Dr. Grover Krantz, & the late Dr. Daris Swindler.

So? they would not be the first scientists to believe in crazy things with minimal to non-existant proof.

The poor guy couldn't win, no matter what. Firstly told "scientists" could be anybody the doco makers wanted. He responded by naming names of people who have viewed the evidence first hand (something that we haven't done) and who should know what they're talking about, only to have this written off with a throw away remark.

 

Why do you think I told him to get a gun and kill one of them if he saw it? What I found interesting is that nobody objected to that idea.

 

All he's got is (poor) evidence that something might exist, all you have is a logical construct that shows they should not exist. (Since you can't prove a negative, a logical construct is the next best thing in my book.)

 

What I'm against is the way we formulated the argument in such a way that only a body would suffice as proof, all the while knowing damn well he didn't have one. The way we structured the argument made it impossible for him to provide any evidence whatsoever that could further his cause. That's not honest debate and it's not science, it's arguing from a predetermined conclusion.

 

If you doubt this, then kindly list any form of evidence (short of a body) that he could have presented. Since we've already written off blood, hair, DNA, photos, videos, eye witness accounts, fingerprints, footprint casts, scat and audio recordings I guarantee it will be a bloody short list.

[mooeypoo]

Oh, most definitely, JohnB, but the difference between the dreamers that contributed to science and the "dreamers" in this thread (hence, the bigfoot proponents) is their METHODOLOGY.

First off, about the people's responses in this thread:

 

I think that since we've all seen this argument (bigfoot exists; here be videos to prove) and we've all SEEN the videos before and *discussed them before!* -- and reached the conclusion that they ARE, indeed, fake - we simply stated they are fake now and told Mr Dreamer proponent to do the hard work and actually look for the thread where all the claims are laid out. That thread exists in this forum, and it's quite long.

 

I just found it annoying that people lay out claims (always the same, btw), run off when it suits them, then come back months later when they think we may have forgotten the answers we gave and expect us to - AGAIN - analyze things we've already analyzed. It's a waste of time, and since bigfoot was a subject on the forums more than once or twice (ahem, with the same videos, seriously), I really didn't have the strength to go over all the nitty gritty points.

 

I did mention this reason before, btw, and I did give out links for a pretty good debunking videos and some debunking texts. I think that served quite well under the circumstances.

 

Now, about your claims:

 

I completely see what you mean about the dreamers, JohnB, and this is one of the issues that I, too, try to hold myself and examine my automatic responses too. Even now when I'm taking physics courses and get "fed" the usual formulas, I try to see how they're proven, and why, and whether or not they are permanent or temporary "truths". Because I agree with you; things change, and we should avoid dogmas, and we should accept dreamers, as "crazy" as they seem to us.

 

BUT

 

The difference between the dreamers and the crackpots is that the dreamers work by the scientific method, and the crackpots don't.

 

You can claim whatever you like, and you can go research whatever you please (or, well, whatever you find funding for), but if you don't follow the scientific method - make unfalsifiable claims, present strictly unreliable proofs, use logical fallacies to explain your reasoning, etc etc - then you're a crackpot.

 

But a person claiming the SAME IDEA as the above crackpot - but following the scientific method until a conclusion can be formed (be it after minutes or after years), is NOT a crackpot.

 

This thread here is crackpottery because it is following crackpot methodology instead of the scientific method.

I agree with your claims, and I agree we should keep our minds open. I also agree about the standards and about keeping the standard high for everything. But the methodology is extremely important,it's the differenec between a discovery and a quackery.

 

Bigfoot itself is not the problem; if the suggestion that an undiscovered species exist somewhere would've been PHRASED SCIENTIFICALLY and falsifiably, then it wouldn't have fallen into the realm of quackery. But Bigfoot proponents are following methodologies that are NOT SCIENTIFIC.

They

• insist on anecdotal evidence as 100% correct when it's OBVIOUSLY (in ANY field of science) not.
  
• They use logical fallacies to explain their logic.
  
• They ignore contradicting evidence.
  

And more, and more, and more. But look at the issues above, JohnB. Those issues would've been quackpottery material no matter which claim they would 'represent'.

 

Even a claim that is a TRUE one! Because it's not just about the claim, it's about the method. It's about the thinking. It's about the theory too.

 

Bigfoot is a quackery.

"Boobagooba" the perhaps-existing missing link species in the jungles of god-knows-where might NOT be, if the CLAIM for its existence is scientific and the research to find it is conducted scientifically.

 

Think of another issue here: UFOs are quackery, but alien life isn't. Why?

Well, UFO visitation theory is stated in such a preposterous way, such an anti-scientific-method nonfalsifiable anti-logical way, that it's just bunk.

Alien life outside of our planet - visiting or not visiting - is unknown, and deserves research. SCIENTIFIC research. Following the scientific method. And perhaps we'll get answers this way, too. But you can almost count on the fact that we won't get anything with "UFO Visitation" theory, because *anything* can be included or excluded from it out of whim.. it's made of statements that are, by themselves unfalsifiable, unscientific and anecdotal.

 

I hope I manage to get my point accross, which is why I repeated them a few times. I actually agree with you about the importance of keeping an open mind. but this issue is VERY important imho. And it can help us discern between science and pseudoscience.

 

Actually, I need to find this but I believe Michael Shermer wrote an article about this too, and it was quite interesting to read. I'll have ot look it up.

 

~moo

[Bignose]

But, how do you define a middle ground, John?

 

I claim that there is an invisible faerie that lives in my backyard.

 

This is a hoax.

 

What possible proof can I show that proves this is a hoax? I can't show you a faked picture -- It's an invisible faerie after all. I can't show you can faked "powers" because I haven't claimed that the faerie has any.

 

How can I or (more to the point) you prove that my claim is a hoax?

 

--------------------------------

 

And, that is the big point.

 

You can't disprove such a statement.

 

The onus is on me, the claimant, to provide evidence to give reason to believe the claim. I have to provide reasons why someone else should believe that there is a faerie in my backyard. It is not on the other side to prove that my claims are a hoax.

[mooeypoo]

Bignose, in all fairness, the claim'er did put forth a proof of his 'invisible faerie'.

In that aspect, he did fullfil his responsibility and provide a proof. The problem is that the proof wasn't good enough, and was shown to be a hoax (perhaps not in this thread, but in others, linked).

The burden of proof goes BACK to the claiming side in this case.

 

Just clarifying

[JohnB]

Bignose, I'm getting really worried about you. Invisible fairies in the garden and invisible trolls in the attic. Do they talk to the invisible man in the fridge that turns the light on?

 

Seriously though, I write off claims of invisible things as rubbish instantly. My comments referred only to the proof or disproof of things like video footage, photographs and casts, physical things.

 

Mooeypoo, I fully understand your frustration, but I doubt many people actually do use the search function when they join a forum. "Use the search" is a common comment I've read, regardless of the actual forum topic. I agree with much of what you said, but have certain reservations. I've just spent 4 hours trying to formulate an explanation of these in an open, coherent sense and failed.

 

You see, I have a problem with the "Scientific Method" in that I feel it is incomplete, but explaining exactly why and how is proving rather difficult.

 

I could write it, but I'm sure it would be misunderstood. If you don't mind I'll try again later with (perhaps) more success.