Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bigfoot
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 262 (400986)
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


Though I want this to be scientific in nature, coffee house is probably a better place for this thread.
I'm a Bigfoot fan. I admit that up front. I believe there is a large bipedal primate living in (among other places) the American NW.
With evidence from sightings to oral traditions to footprint casts to hair samples - there's a strong indication that something is out there.
I just watched a "documentary" on Discovery which talked about "both sides" of the issue and found the arguments being posed by the skeptics to be seriously lacking.
Here's some examples:
- Bigfoot couldn't survive the winters in the Pac NW because there isn't enough food out there to sustain the needs of a big brained primate.
- Bigfoot could not be noturnal because it would need to be able to see colors in order distinguish it's food (apparently only plants) from other plants
- If Bigfoot is an ape there should be "ape nests" like those created by gorillas
And on and on...
Most of the arguments were good arguments for why there are not gorillas in the Pacific NW, but that's not really a valid way to disprove a different species.
Other arguments were great for proving why no member of the primate family could survive in the Pac NW, which, if you told this to the Native Americans of the area, I would expect a lot of head scratching.
Is there anyone here at EVC who is particularly ANTI-Bigfoot who'll try to raise at least a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist.
I know - I'm basically asking you to prove a negative - this isn't meant to be a "Debate" as much as a discussion about why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2007 6:13 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 05-17-2007 7:32 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-17-2007 9:55 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2007 11:06 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 05-18-2007 11:11 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 32 by tudwell, posted 05-18-2007 5:04 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 52 by anglagard, posted 05-19-2007 11:01 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 177 by sidelined, posted 05-22-2007 12:45 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 199 by Bigfoot, posted 05-25-2007 6:00 AM Nuggin has not replied
 Message 215 by LudoRephaim, posted 12-11-2007 1:06 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 262 (400989)
05-17-2007 6:05 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 262 (400992)
05-17-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


They found/discovered Mountain Lions in southern Missouri not too long ago. People had reported seeing them but the skeptics were saying their same old stuff, until it was confirmed.
The point is that large mammals could live in an area and remain fairly undetected. I'd leave the possibility of Bigfoot existing open.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 6:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 262 (400997)
05-17-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
05-17-2007 6:13 PM


same old same old
Yeah, similiarly, I'm sure there were plenty of people making the argument that there is no way there could be a large bear living in a bamboo forest, and even if there was, there is no way it would be black and white.
There are populations of deer and coyotes living in many many urban centers and people have no clue.
If you think about it, how many times have you crossed over that bridge near your house? How many times have you climbed down to see what's under it.
It's extremely easy to pass by little pockets of nature without a second glance. You never know what's hiding in the shadows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-17-2007 6:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 262 (401004)
05-17-2007 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


Evidence
a discussion about why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply.
Well, let's start with, "What evidence is there?" This seems to me to be more fruitful than an abstract discussion of what types of evidence are worth how much, who to believe, who not to believe, etc. I'll confess to very little knowledge of bigfoot claims, other than the grainy clips that I suppose everyone has seen that have been discredited.
What else do you have?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 9:10 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 12 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2007 10:53 AM subbie has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 6 of 262 (401020)
05-17-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
05-17-2007 7:32 PM


Re: Evidence
Okay, short of time, so I'm going give the evidence a quick fly by and will come back to do more later.
Accounts -
Take them for what they are worth, there have been literally thousands of eye-witness accounts. I'm sure some (even many) may be completely fictional. Others may be just simply in error about what they saw (ie it was a bear). But there are quite a few which are credible.
Film / Photos -
Here there are many many fakes, unfortunately. Including the most famous footage - the Patterson Film.
Physical Evidence -
Mostly plaster casts of footprints, and again, here we find a number of fakes as well. But there are quite a few which, at the very least, would be hard to fake, for example a few left in very fine silt actually show skin texture.
Additionally there are hair samples attributed to a yet unknown primate. These never seem to get addressed in the TV specials.
Oral history -
For what it's worth, the Native American tribes of the area have oral histories which reference these creatures. Sure, the Greeks have Minotaurs in their oral history, but you don't have hundreds of sightings a year of Minotaurs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 05-17-2007 7:32 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 05-17-2007 10:06 PM Nuggin has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 7 of 262 (401024)
05-17-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


You believe in God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 4:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 8 of 262 (401027)
05-17-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 9:10 PM


Re: Evidence
The first question is how do we know any of the evidence is valid. We know that eyewitness accounts, at their very best, are of marginal value.
Perhaps all the photos/films are fake? I've never seen really good one fake or not. Do you have a place to look at any?
I've never seen anything about the detailed cast. Do you have reference?
The only reference I've ever seen to a hair sample was one shown to be a bear. Do you have details?
Oral histories are worth even less than a current eye witness account.
In all this suggests that there is, in fact, very little evidence and maybe no hard evidence at all.
What is there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 9:10 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:13 AM NosyNed has replied
 Message 42 by Nuggin, posted 05-19-2007 2:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 9 of 262 (401062)
05-18-2007 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
05-17-2007 9:55 PM


What?
You believe in God?
Wander into the wrong thread River?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 05-17-2007 9:55 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by riVeRraT, posted 05-18-2007 10:55 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 10 of 262 (401063)
05-18-2007 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
05-17-2007 10:06 PM


Re: Evidence
We know that eyewitness accounts, at their very best, are of marginal value.
I agree, eyewitness accounts are as much about what the witnesser wishes to see as it is what is actually there. And, for the most part, I discount 90% of these accounts.
But there are accounts which are not so easy to discount. Accounts of rational people who had ample opertunity to observe carefully what it was that they saw.
I've never seen really good one fake or not
Frankly, in the case of photos I generally feel that the better the photo the more likely it was faked.
The most "real" footage I ever saw was taken by a pair of teens. In the audio track on the footage you can hear that they are freaking the hell out. However, I still can't make out what they think they are seeing in the footage. Underbrush + poor lighting + a cheap camera = not much to go on. However, unlike a lot of other clips, this one certainly doesn't "feel" fake the way that others so clearly do.
Oral histories are worth even less than a current eye witness account.
I disagree. While, clearly, the specifics of any given oral history are completely subject to change, the fact that they exist up and down the coast is a pretty good indiciator that there was something driving this belief system.
While I'm not suscribing this with the same sort of weight the Creos give "cultures all over the world have flood myths therefore the Flood really happened", I am saying that belief in this creature certainly predates European influence in the area.
maybe no hard evidence at all.
Well some would say the only acceptable hard evidence is a dead bigfoot. And, yes, that would be the "best" evidence (short of a captured live one).
But I'll point out that pandas and mountain gorillas were both only known by eyewitness accounts and local legend long before a specimen was produced. In fact the "experts" of the day were saying many of the same things we hear about Bigfoot.
Anyway, as for references on some of the other stuff, I'll get some good ones. Unfortunately it's 2am here and I don't want to blind link a bunch of crypto sites. I'll go and cherry pick the stuff I find more reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 05-17-2007 10:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 05-18-2007 10:52 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 38 by ramoss, posted 05-18-2007 5:44 PM Nuggin has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 262 (401085)
05-18-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 5:13 AM


teen footage
he most "real" footage I ever saw was taken by a pair of teens.
I'm pretty sure I saw that one recently. The teens certainly were excited. The image is pretty dreadful but it screams "bear". If this is what you think is evidence then I guess that explains your interest in bigfoot.
Pandas and mountain Gorillas were discovered over a century ago. The world has changed rather a lot you know.
It feels like you're clutching at straws. You've decided you like the idea of these things (I do too.) and you're looking for a way to justtify it.
Oral "histories" are loaded with all sorts of things. Selecting the ones that you like and thinking they are evidence is a form (I think) of confirmation bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 5:13 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2007 11:16 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 17 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 11:52 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 157 by Larni, posted 05-21-2007 2:35 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 262 (401086)
05-18-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by subbie
05-17-2007 7:32 PM


Re: Evidence
quote:
I'll confess to very little knowledge of bigfoot claims, other than the grainy clips that I suppose everyone has seen that have been discredited
Mitch Hedburg writes:
I think that the problem is that Bigfoot IS blurry....and that's extra scary to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 05-17-2007 7:32 PM subbie has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 13 of 262 (401087)
05-18-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
05-18-2007 4:58 AM


Re: What?
Wander into the wrong thread River?
I must have made a wrong turn at Alberkerky.....
I was just curious how you could believe in bigfoot, with the lack of objective evidence, yet not believe in God. (if you don't)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 4:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 11:56 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 262 (401089)
05-18-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


Is there anyone here at EVC who is particularly ANTI-Bigfoot who'll try to raise at least a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist.
If there's a sustainable population of Bigfoots in the Pacific NW, it would be large enough that we should see Bigfoot carcasses by the side of the road.
A population small enough to hide from Homo sapiens is way too small to be sustainable.
There's no fossil record of primates that far north. If there's a sustainable population of Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) what did they evolve from?
Why do all the supposed pictures look like guys in gorilla suits?
Why don't we find primitive tools or shelters?
Other arguments were great for proving why no member of the primate family could survive in the Pac NW, which, if you told this to the Native Americans of the area, I would expect a lot of head scratching.
The Native Americans used tools - a lot of them - to survive in those climes; as I recall they were predominantly fisher cultures. As a result the area is littered with bone fishhooks and the like. Where are all the Bigfoot tools? You're talking about a large population of enormous primates - with enormous calorie requirements - living in a biome that can't supply those calories just by grazing, but somehow manages to escape thousands of people trying to find just one without leaving any tools or constructions behind.
There's an astounding lack of evidence for Bigfoot, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I wouldn't say that I'm particularly "anti-Bigfoot", but I'm anti-nonsense, and this pretty much seems like nonsense.
And you should know better than to start a thread by asking your opponents to disprove something. If you have evidence of Bigfoot, let's see what it is. We can immediately discount "oral traditions" and "sightings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 12:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 262 (401091)
05-18-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
05-17-2007 5:51 PM


I'm curious why you think this rebuttal can be simply dismissed:
Bigfoot couldn't survive the winters in the Pac NW because there isn't enough food out there to sustain the needs of a big brained primate.
The biggest arboreal mammals can only survive the winters by hibernating; is this what you're suggesting the Bigfoots do?
Or are you referring again to the fishing peoples of the Pacific NW, who were able to survive the winters by preserving salmon in their smokehouses? If Bigfoot is running a chain of redwood-forest smokehouses (yum), that would seem to make him easier to detect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 05-17-2007 5:51 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Nuggin, posted 05-18-2007 12:35 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024