wvbig

Many Bigfoot/Sasquatch skeptics think those of us who believe in the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, don't understand Occam's Razor. On the contrary, we understand it. We just think the existence of Bigfoot IS the simplest explanation for all the reports of sightings and circumstantial evidence found over the past 1,000 years. According to John Green's book "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" Reports of Bigfoot/Sasquatch throwing rocks & sticks at people, date back to 1849, but it wasn't a known behavior of Great Apes until the 1960s I think the chances of people making up a behavior for a mythical ape that turned out to be a real behavior of real apes over 100 years later, are EXTREMELY small. As for my own sighting in 1997 in West Virginia, what I saw was walking on two legs, with broad shoulders and was completely black. Broad shoulders of course eliminates all quadrupeds, so we're left with two possibilities. 1) A person in a costume, trying to trick people or 2) A Bigfoot. Nobody knew I was going to be in that location. I didn't even know. It wasn't the original location I was Turkey hunting in that morning and I didn't report the sighting and to this day, nearly 26 years later, I know of no reports of Bigfoot sightings in that area. Someone trying to trick people, would've kept doing it until they got some attention 

It has been determined that there isn't enough food in Loch Ness to support a breeding population of Plesiosaur type creatures, but what if they occasionally enter the lake via a submarine cavern, maybe for breeding/egg laying? I think "Nessi" sightings could be a combination of this and Eel sightings. I saw a video on YouTube of a boat on Loch Ness with what was obviously a large Eel swimming along side of it. I would estimate it to be approximately 10' (3 meters) long

For any scientists who are skeptics of Bigfoot. It's not that we don't understand Occam's Razor. We just disagree on what is more likely. Bigfoot exists or every single report in the past 200+ years is either a hoax or misidentification. Take into consideration that reports of Bigfoot throwing things at people, dates back to at least 1849, but it wasn't a known behavior of apes until the 1960s

I recently saw a documentary about a serial killer who claimed his stomach would be tied in knots and he'd be very fidgety until he killed someone. Is there any documented mental illness that causes such physical symptoms?

Why do you think some groups of people have progressed while others have remained in primative stages?

Are Whitetail does with antlers, shunned by the rest of the herd? I'm asking because yesterday, I saw an 8 point Whitetail all by itself. Twice. This time of year in my area, the bucks should all still be together, or chasing does

Thank you

I know water contaminated with raw sewage causes disease, but don't know exactly why. Human waste is made up of food & beverages we ingest & various enzymes that are already in our bodies. Where does the disease come in?

as much as I hate having to bring it Right Down to the vulgar basics, Follow The Money!

and with TV shows it`s all about ratings and Not that hard to figure out.

 

as for "Ghosts" I tend to lump it with UFO`s, observable Phenomenon sure, Unexplained sometimes, but rarely!

 

and for Voice recordings (and I don`t expect anyone to understand this), but any amplifier circuit is 95% of any basic radio! two wires running side by side form both an inductor and capacitor cct, enough to form a simple TRF radio when connected to an amp.

You're right, I don't understand what you're saying in any technical detail. But I believe you're saying there is a logical explanation for EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon) Right?

Merged post follows:

by "ghost hunters" I simply meant one or any of the many generic programmes on the subject.

 

I have seen some, probably the "Ghost Hunters" (they were ex-plumbers?) that are better. They debunked most of the ghosts.

 

There was one, I cannot remember the exact name but they did find some "anomalies" in thermal imaging. However, these were not really investigated. I suspect (if the results were not faked) that they were down to internal effects of the cameras and/or products of how they were being used. A large part of sensor engineering is making sure you get the signals you are expecting.

 

There was no independent observations or "anomalies" recorded by any other means they employed.

 

Thus, the results are not really very scientific.

Last night they mentioned that sometimes the source for a thermal vision hit is an animal inside a wall. I think a grief stricken mind can manifest things as well. Some noticeable only to the grief stricken person & some noticeable to others. Back in 1995, a friend of mine was killed in a car accident. For a couple months, I could occasionally smell her perfume & once in awhile, my door would slowly open, I would say "Close the door please Brenda" and it would slowly close. This happened in front of witnesses. The thing is, Brenda was never in my house. So there is no reason for her "spirit" or "ghost" to be there either. And after a couple months, everything stopped

Where are electromagnetic fields usually found? I mean around what natural features? Streams, rocks, etc...

I used to like watching some of the "ghost hunter" programmes. But they always end up being rubbish and ignoring the basic ethos of scientific experiments; results should be repeatable.

You obviously haven't watched "Ghost Hunters" recently & didn't pay very close attention when you did watch. They generally are able to debunk about 90% of the so-called "Paranormal activity" But last season they repeatedly asked an alleged entity to adjust the room temperature by specific amounts in both directions & according to their temperature gauges, the temperature changed accordingly. They also now have something they call a K2 Meter that flashes when there is supposed to be a spirit in front of it. Time after time, they ask a spirit to light it up & it does

you're ignoring half my post

 

again.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

~moo

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

It's just common sense.

 

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

 

It's just common sense.

 

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

 

This too is common sense.

 

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

 

It's just common sense.

 

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

 

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

 

That is just the scientific method.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

That is common sense.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

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

Why no arch? Why no toes?

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

That statement is not inaccurate.

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

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

I have 3 problems with that last article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

What questions have I not answered?

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

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

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.

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

See our problem here?

 

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

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

 

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

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

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.

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.

Yes, parts 1 & 3 have malformed video IDs.

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