For any skeptics of Bigfoot

[wvbig]

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

[Bufofrog]

Bigfoot, really?

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, wvbig said:

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

First, not "every single report in the past 200+ years" mentions "throwing things at people", so you don't get to conflate the two. Second, your argument begs the question that it was a Bigfoot (really?) throwing things at people, so you don't get to assume that. It's just the kind of behavior that has mundane, mainstream explanations for it, which shows you don't understand Occam's Razor.

Third, skeptics don't sit on the fence. If they don't find evidence quickly, they assume the mainstream explanation is adequate, and get off the fence until there's something new to question. What you're engaging in here is conspiracy. There's no firm evidence, but you assume it's true and try to reverse engineer the whole process. You're convinced of something extraordinary when ordinary will suffice.

[Arete]

1 hour ago, wvbig said:

 It's not that we don't understand Occam's Razor. We just disagree on what is more likely. 

I love how "We understand X" is immediately followed by a spectacular demonstration of not understanding X. 

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, wvbig said:

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

Didn’t you start a thread on all this back in 2008? What’s different now?

[mistermack]

Occams razor will very quickly find that there were millions of instances of humans doing practical jokes last year. 

Some are even done by farmers, trampling corn in circles with their big feet. 

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, wvbig said:

Take into consideration that reports of Bigfoot throwing things at people,

I'd actually never heard this before, but it seems more like evidence of human behavior. While primates are the best at using inorganic, solid projectiles, only humans are good enough at throwing things to be accurate at distances beyond a few meters. In the stories you believe, do people get hit by what Bigfoot throws? How far was the throw? 

[mistermack]

Bigfoot bones. What happens to them? Nobody's ever found a bigfoot bone. Nowhere on earth. Ever. Nor bigfoot hair. Nor bigfoot shit. Don't they shit? Or perhaps they are a bit fastidious. People go hunting every day with dogs. Don't the dogs EVER tree a bigfoot? Don't bigfeet ever die in a forest fire, and get found later, like other animals? 

In the era when everyone carrys a mobile phone, the bigfeet never get snapped or videod. Maybe they have mobiles too. 

[TheVat]

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Occams razor will very quickly find that there were millions of instances of humans doing practical jokes last year. 

Some are even done by farmers, trampling corn in circles with their big feet. 

Show me a sudden burst of UFO sightings or ghostly apparitions or strange hominins, centered on a town in economic distress, and I will show you a cabal of local businessmen coming up with creative ways to boost tourism.  

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Maybe they have mobiles too. 

Not yeti, but soon!

[mistermack]

I'm actually surprised that practical jokers haven't performed more and better bigfoot japes. The stuff that does exist is pretty dated and tame. If they can fake a moon landing, you would think faking bigfoot would be a doddle. 😊

[Moontanman]

Hey! A fellow hillbilly! Have you seen a bigfoot in WV? I lived in around and near Sissonville WV, what part you from? I lived pretty far out in the sticks, I was raised by my grandfather who was Cherokee. I asked him about bigfoot a few times. He said it was just a story to scare children, he was a master trapper and woodsman. I always accepted what he said but I still always kept an eye out for tracks when out in the woods. 

[Phi for All]

18 hours ago, mistermack said:

In the era when everyone carrys a mobile phone, the bigfeet never get snapped or videod.

And consider the resolution in that snap. Smartphone cameras are simply amazing these days. People have to actually be careful what they take a picture of, since it just takes two fingers to zoom in and read license plates and documents sticking out of people's pockets. It's now a trope in movies and TV that phone photos have identifiable antagonists lurking in the background, yet the modern photos of BF remain grainy and shaky.

[Bufofrog]

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

He said it was just a story to scare children, he was a master trapper and woodsman.

If you want to know what kind of wildlife is in the area you ask a trapper, end of story.

[Arete]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And consider the resolution in that snap. Smartphone cameras are simply amazing these days. People have to actually be careful what they take a picture of, since it just takes two fingers to zoom in and read license plates and documents sticking out of people's pockets. It's now a trope in movies and TV that phone photos have identifiable antagonists lurking in the background, yet the modern photos of BF remain grainy and shaky.

In addition, consider the snow leopard. Lives the remote, high altitude areas of the Himalayas - considerably more remote than the West Virginia woods. Stealthy AF, near perfect camouflage, super low abundance, solitary. Formally described in 1930. Lots of crystal clear photos. Tens of physical museum specimens. A sequenced genome. Over 160 you can go see, live, with your own eyes in a zoo.

Bigfoot is supposedly bigger, lives in a much more fragmented and densely populated locality, and yet none of the above evidence exists. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Arete said:

In addition, consider the snow leopard. Lives the remote, high altitude areas of the Himalayas - considerably more remote than the West Virginia woods. Stealthy AF, near perfect camouflage, super low abundance, solitary. Formally described in 1930. Lots of crystal clear photos. Tens of physical museum specimens. A sequenced genome. Over 160 you can go see, live, with your own eyes in a zoo.

Bigfoot is supposedly bigger, lives in a much more fragmented and densely populated locality, and yet none of the above evidence exists. 

You read my mind. I was thinking of the Amur tiger. Korean researcher Sooyong Park spent months in the Siberian and Chinese forests, eating rice, nuts and salt, and removing all traces of his own poo, hiding in a hole underground for years to film them. Yet we have extensive footage of these animals and their family life. And they had been seen and captured before. 

Also, bigfoot must be the only primate species in like 55 million years that's not highly social, curious, extremely boisterous. Isn't that peculiar?

And lastly, we're aware of the existence of a ancient species of ape (the Denisovans) thanks to a tiny fragment of a phalanx from the pinky of one hand, including sequences of their DNA. And we can't obtain definite proof of the existence of a big hulking ape who inhabits the Earth now?

[Moontanman]

On 9/2/2022 at 12:27 PM, Phi for All said:

And consider the resolution in that snap. Smartphone cameras are simply amazing these days. People have to actually be careful what they take a picture of, since it just takes two fingers to zoom in and read license plates and documents sticking out of people's pockets. It's now a trope in movies and TV that phone photos have identifiable antagonists lurking in the background, yet the modern photos of BF remain grainy and shaky.

What you said is true but some photos suffer from the "To good to be true" syndrom. Personally I think Bigfoot is misidentification of black bears, but that is just my opinion. 

Also there is the road kill hypothesis, everything, even humans eventually end up as road kill... even humans, but no bigfoot road kill ever... 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Moontanman