Bigfoot evidence gathering flowchart

[Drewbot]

While it is understood that the reliable evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is non-existent, would it be more beneficial for Bigfootry to stop clouding the 'evidence pool' with crappy evidence?

IOW-
Would zero footer evidence be better for bigfootry than a Footer-mobile full of crap evidence?

Following is a flow chart depicting how I picture some elements of Bigfootry determining if a footprint is worth plaster-casting and adding to the mountain of worthless wall hangings.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1970548fce58aa71d8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14103)

[sthomson]

This criticism is meant in the most constructive of ways: A flowchart if it has arrows, rather than lines. :)

[learner]

That made me laugh. nice one. just one suggestion, constructive I hope. How about adding a self check of bottles of beer drank. ie; under ten, cast it, over ten go home to bed. Keep it rigorous i say! awkward questions may be asked by your bigfootie peers later. Maybe.

[tyr_13]

Sweet...

[Correa Neto]

Blobfeet!

You forgot blobfeet! Gotta "flowchart" them also!

[Drewbot]

Blobfeet!

You forgot blobfeet! Gotta "flowchart" them also!

Blobfeet would be the equivalent to this portion of the flowchart-

"Does it look like this?"

No...

"Not even a little?"

No...

"CAST THAT SUCKA!"

[Denver]

Nice chart!

But, to answer the OP:

Any meme, which for its justification relies on unclear, unconvincing, and unreliable evidence, must not invite the scientific method or critical thinking, if it is to survive. These methods are completely antagonistic to that meme, and would destroy it from within, like a virus. The best defense for this kind of meme is to create easy entry for a large populous of believers, who feel they can contribute valuable support to that meme. When a critical mass is reached, ignorance and blind belief become the primary product generated by this machine, rather than science or analysis. And the sheer volume of this ignorance and belief can then easily wash away any attacks which reason may attempt, in the same way a hurricane, fueled by hot air, need pay no attention to anything that has the audacity to assail it.

[kitakaze]

Following is a flow chart (snip)...

I love it. I think I'll reorganize my footprint collection. Last month it was by number of appearances in Bigfoot documentaries. This month we're going to spice it up and arrange them by number of toes.

[George152]

Is the flowchart going to chart stuff that can flow ?

[Drewbot]

Nice chart!

But, to answer the OP:

Any meme, which for its justification relies on unclear, unconvincing, and unreliable evidence, must not invite the scientific method or critical thinking, if it is to survive. These methods are completely antagonistic to that meme, and would destroy it from within, like a virus. The best defense for this kind of meme is to create easy entry for a large populous of believers, who feel they can contribute valuable support to that meme. When a critical mass is reached, ignorance and blind belief become the primary product generated by this machine, rather than science or analysis. And the sheer volume of this ignorance and belief can then easily wash away any attacks which reason may attempt, in the same way a hurricane, fueled by hot air, need pay no attention to anything that has the audacity to assail it.

So basically- Bigfootry has no place for scientific method or critical thinking. Groundbreaking stuff Denver! And no matter how clear the facts are made, bigfootry will simply move on with it's same old bad science. Sweaty? any comment?

[SweatyYeti]

Drewbot wrote:
bigfootry will simply move on with it's same old bad science.

Sweaty? any comment?


Sure. :)

Here is some bad science, for ya...

tyr13 wroted:

IF bigfoot existed he could be a bear.

:boggled:


And from Correa:

What about a bipedal marsupial?

What about a genus which evolved, say, from bears?


When asked for a little evidence (weak or strong) to support his proposals....the scientifically-minded Correa produced the following:







Ummmmmmmm....


Well, you see...


Ummmmmmmm...

Well, you know...maybe....

Ummmmmmm.....Well, I'll get back to you on that...



Oh....almost forgot...RayG initially proposed the idea that Bigfoot, if it is a real animal, may not be a Primate.

Whence-upon being asked (by me) for some alternative family group to "Primate", that Bigfoot may indeed belong to, he replied with this scientific answer:


Ummmmmmm....


Lets' see.....


Ummmmmmm...How about........


Hmmmmmm....Golly, I'll have to get back to you on that...


(Now that is some good ol' fashioned syentiffic thinkin', ain't it! :D )

[Correa Neto]

Holy distortion of arguments, Batman!

You know Sweaty, IF we were actually proposing bigfeet are real and are marsupials or bears, then PERHAPS you would have a point.

But, since unfortunately for you, we are actually mocking the pseudoscientific babble called cryptozoology (subspecies bigfootery, variety SweatyYeti's reasonings), once again you fumbled...
Deriving conclusions from bad data is bad science. Since there are no pieces of reliable evidence to back the claim bigfet are real, then mid-tarsal breaks, IMs from PGF, "bigfeet did it" conclusions obtained from Gaussian curves derived from alleged footprint casts, behavior patterns inferred from sighting reports, ascribing bigfeet to gigantopithecus (or paranthropus, meganthropus, etc.), all this stuff is junk science. And no ammount of obfuscations, diversions and smileys can hide this.

[RayG]

Oh....almost forgot...RayG initially proposed the idea that Bigfoot, if it is a real animal, may not be a Primate.

Whence-upon being asked (by me) for some alternative family group to "Primate", that Bigfoot may indeed belong to, he replied with this scientific answer:

Ummmmmmm....

Lets' see.....

Ummmmmmm...How about........

Hmmmmmm....Golly, I'll have to get back to you on that...

(Now that is some good ol' fashioned syentiffic thinkin', ain't it! :D )

Keep flailing away Sweaty, it won't make you any smarter.

Still waiting for that body so I can gets me a tattoo. Get back to me on that would ya...

RayG

[SweatyYeti]

Holy distortion of arguments, Batman!

You know Sweaty, IF we were actually proposing Bigoot are real and are marsupials or bears, then PERHAPS you would have a point.



Well, my original statement included the condition..."IF Bigfoot were real..."

....and Ray responded to it by proposing that Bigfoot...IF IT IS A REAL ANIMAL...may belong to some family group other than Primate.

So.....if neither Ray, nor you, are proposing any other group that Bigfoot may belong to, besides Primate, then neither you nor Ray can SUPPORT Ray's suggestion with anything of substance.........right?! :)

Apparently, then, you would agree that there is no other 'family group', alive today, which fits the common description of Bigfoot. Is that correct?




Deriving conclusions from bad data is bad science.
Since there are no pieces of reliable evidence to back the claim bigfet are real, then mid-tarsal breaks, IMs from PGF, "bigfeet did it" conclusions obtained from Gaussian curves derived from alleged footprint casts, behavior patterns inferred from sighting reports, ascribing bigfeet to gigantopithecus (or paranthropus, meganthropus, etc.), ALL this stuff is junk science.


Every bit of analysis ever done on the evidence for Bigfoot is junk science???

That seems like a rather extreme judgement to make, to me.


Here is a relevant, and timely, article about such 'extreme' skepticism...

http://www.dailygrail.com/news/psychology-of-the-skeptic

A couple of quotes from it:


However, I also think it's worth pointing out that the "extreme skepticism" seems to take the lead in the authoritative skeptical organisations (e.g. Randi, CSICOP), whereas leading parapsychologists do not engage in such extreme behaviour.




The modern skeptical movement bugs me for the simple fact that they should know better. Their reason for being is supposed to be critical thinking :covereyes, and yet it has become quite obvious that it is as much a belief system to many 'adherents', as those that they criticise regularly.

[paximperium]

If Bigfoot were real, I believe to be a troll. Big hairy ones with no critical thinking skills.

[GT/CS]

If Bigfoot were real, I believe to be a troll. Big hairy ones with no critical thinking skills.

Excellent point. They do look quite similar. And trolls have been around for thousands of years.

So people are mistaking trolls for bigfeets. Wow, it's so perfect, yet simple!

[kitakaze]

Well, my original statement included the condition..."IF Bigfoot were real..."

....and Ray responded to it by proposing that Bigfoot...IF IT IS A REAL ANIMAL...may belong to some family group other than Primate.

So.....if neither Ray, nor you, are proposing any other group that Bigfoot may belong to, besides Primate, then neither you nor Ray can SUPPORT Ray's suggestion with anything of substance.........right?! :)

Apparently, then, you would agree that there is no other 'family group', alive today, which fits the common description of Bigfoot. Is that correct?

We are dealing with this issue in the reliable evidence thread. Sweaty has been asked to address the evidence claims of Bigfoot such as alleged prints that often show a number of digits that is not in line with primate morphology. He has refused to address the issue based on the assertion that doing so would qualify as a new discussion.:rolleyes:

Sweaty has been asked to deal with other evidence claims that are not in line with the assumption that Bigfoot is a mere primate. Specifically Sweaty has been asked to explain why he indicated that a Bigfoot/alien hypothesis is completely, ridiculously, laughably silly. This is of particular interest given the fact that Sweaty believes in not only Bigfoot but also E.T. visitation to Earth and Martian civilization.

After repeated requests to address the subject not only is his silence of note but also his above sarcasm loses its bite.

Here is a link to the most recent page of the thread where the discussion is occurring:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4187393#post4187393

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:
After repeated requests to address the subject not only is his silence of note but also his above sarcasm loses its bite.



Well, you see...:)...it's like this...

"We interrupt this program to bring you these special song lyrics...courtesy of Cat Stevens...

Longer boats are coming to win us...
They're coming to win us, they're coming to win us...
Longer boats are coming to win us
Hold on to the shore....
They'll be taking the key from the door.

I don't want no God on my lawn
Just a flower......I can help along...:rolleyes:...
'Cause the soul of no-body knows
How a flower grows....Oh, how a flower grows...


We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming."



.....and so, that's why I haven't commented on the Alien/Bigfoot thing.

[kitakaze]

I love Cat Stevens. I hate evasion.

You do whatever you need to to avoid anything that shows weakness in your arguments.

We like Cat.

[SweatyYeti]

I love Cat Stevens. I hate evasion.

You do whatever you need to to avoid anything that shows weakness in your arguments.

We like Cat.


Well, I guess that's one positivewe can take out of our debates....we both like Cat Stevens' music. :)


As for the Alien/Supernatural Bigfoot theory, though, it'll be a mighty long time before I ever get into debating that wacky 'theory'.

I figure it this way....it's hard enough trying to pin down a Bigfoot that's stuck inside these 3 dimensions, with us....it's another ballgame altogether to try to figure-out exactly what the deal is with a Bigfoot that pops in and out between universes...:boggled:.

[Correa Neto]

Well, my original statement included the condition..."IF Bigfoot were real..."

....and Ray responded to it by proposing that Bigfoot...IF IT IS A REAL ANIMAL...may belong to some family group other than Primate.

So.....if neither Ray, nor you, are proposing any other group that Bigfoot may belong to, besides Primate, then neither you nor Ray can SUPPORT Ray's suggestion with anything of substance.........right?! :)

Apparently, then, you would agree that there is no other 'family group', alive today, which fits the common description of Bigfoot. Is that correct?
Sweaty, there's no escape to the fact that you are -once again- evading the real issues and distorting arguments. Arguments which so far you have not been able to propperly counter. In a nutshell- Since you don't have reliable evidences to back the claim bigfeet are real, all that you have are nothing but speculations wich are impossible to verify.

I am eargerly awaiting your answers to the questions I made at the "evidence" thread.

Every bit of analysis ever done on the evidence for Bigfoot is junk science???

That seems like a rather extreme judgement to make, to me.

...snip...
One more example of distortion and quote mining from your part.

The examples I presented (mid-tarsal breaks, IMs from PGF, "bigfeet did it" conclusions obtained from Gaussian curves derived from alleged footprint casts, behavior patterns inferred from sighting reports, ascribing bigfeet to gigantopithecus or paranthropus, meganthropus, etc.), are, IMHO, junk science. Do they cover "every bit of analysis ever done on the evidence for Bigfoot"?

BTW, I am ready to expose (again) the reasons why I reached this conclusion. What about starting a thread on mid-tarsal breaks, for example?

I suspect that the best works about bigfeet made so far reached conclusions othen than "bigfeet didit"...

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:
The examples I presented (mid-tarsal breaks, IMs from PGF, "bigfeet did it" conclusions obtained from Gaussian curves derived from alleged footprint casts, behavior patterns inferred from sighting reports, ascribing bigfeet to gigantopithecus or paranthropus, meganthropus, etc.), are, IMHO, junk science.

Do they cover "every bit of analysis ever done on the evidence for Bigfoot"?



Sorry, I got the impression...from your list...that you were basically 'ragging' on all of the scientific analysis that's been done on all of the evidence for Bigfoot.

Can you give some examples of some types of Bigfoot evidence which have had resonable, legitimate scientific analysis done to them (in your opinion)?


Also....can you provide 2 examples of Bigfoot evidence which could qualify as... "reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence, while not proving it's existence"?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Correa Neto wrote:



Sorry, I got the impression...from your list...that you were basically 'ragging' on all of the scientific analysis that's been done on all of the evidence for Bigfoot.

Can you give some examples of some types of Bigfoot evidence which have had resonable, legitimate scientific analysis done to them (in your opinion)?


Also....can you provide 2 examples of Bigfoot evidence which could qualify as... "reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence, while not proving it's existence"?


Sure

>>>Can you give some examples of some types of Bigfoot evidence which have had resonable, legitimate scientific analysis done to them (in your opinion)?

The Snelgrove DNA/hair, Meldrum's casts, Various scat- all "proved" to be nothing

>>>Also....can you provide 2 examples of Bigfoot evidence which could qualify as... "reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence, while not proving it's existence"?

Sure, any of the above that rated above either nothing or inconclusive

[Correa Neto]

Can you give some examples of some types of Bigfoot evidence which have had resonable, legitimate scientific analysis done to them (in your opinion)?
Probably what LT wrote. I would also add DesertYeti's look at Skookum cast and Tube's work with the "dermals". Note that all of these ended up as something other than "bigfoot didit" as the best answer.

Kathy Strain's book probably is a good collection of myths and legends, but it doesn't look like a real "scientific" work, seems to be aimed towards the general public. I haven't read it yet but seems to be OK from a social/cultural antropology POV - even though I do not think real bigfeet lie at the sasquatch myths' core.

Also....can you provide 2 examples of Bigfoot evidence which could qualify as... "reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence, while not proving it's existence"?

More than once I made this. Last time was at that "evidences" thread. Feel free to check it or use the search function.

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:
More than once I made this. Last time was at that "evidences" thread. Feel free to check it or use the search function.


Here are your examples, from post #16 of the "Reliable Evidence" thread:


Reliable evidence:
1. DNA (from poop, hair folicles, skin, blood, tissue pieces, nails) - a result like "unknown genus from the Ponginae subfamily". Sample provenance is a must.

2. Imagery - sharp images or footage, from an undisputed source (someone whose career would be ruined if found involved somehow in a hoax), showing the critter doing things which would be hard to replicate in a suit. Can be elevated to the level of "proof" if additional imagery can be obtained by independent teams.

3. Fossil remains of a bigfoot-like creature in North America (in Asia, near the land bridge and at an environment similar to where bigfeet are supposed to live would be very close in terms of quality)

4. Casts of consecutive footprints showing the same "dermals" (note - casting artifacts and hoaxery must be ruled out).

If we have a long track and the track shows evidences of a real, living foot, such as toes with different positions, morphology changes due to stride and pace changes and the caster was carefull enough when collecting the data as well as some stuff I can't think about right now, maybe it can be reliable evidence.
It can be still be interpreted in three ways - a real bigfoot did it, a human did it (I'm asuming the foot is what we see from currently available material- very human-like) or an elaborated hoax.
It will not be proof; it may be good enough to raise eyebrows and open the door to a more detailed and expensive follow-up.



I'll re-post this response of mine over on the "Reliable Evidence" thread, and continue the discussion there. I'll comment on those examples later.

In the meantime...can you provide a few examples of evidence which don't qualify as "Reliable evidence for Bigfoot's existence", but are only of moderate strength, regarding Bigfoot's existence?

[GT/CS]

It kills me to help Sweaty out here but I think everyone is misunderstanding his question.

What I think he's looking for is some evidence that hasn't been completely shot down by the 'skeptics', and/or isn't considered to be total crap.

Is there anything out there that makes us so-called skeptics take notice? Or anything that makes us cringe just a little, or that we dismiss more from emotion than reason?

I had hoped the Georgia boyz were going to provide something decent but like all the rest it ended up being total bigfoot dung.

[kitakaze]

Well, I guess that's one positivewe can take out of our debates....we both like Cat Stevens' music. :)


That's right, Sweaty. Well said. I think your logic is weirdo and I often find debating something with you to be like greasing a seal but it's not like we hate eachother. For future reference good music references make me a big suck.

As for the Alien/Supernatural Bigfoot theory, though, it'll be a mighty long time before I ever get into debating that wacky 'theory'.

I think it's wacky that you think there's ruined civilizations sitting there on Mars, War of the Worlds is going on over head, and Bigfoot spans coast to coast and beyond yet you would dismiss a connection blithely as being wacky. A great many Bigfoot enthusiasts prescribe to that theory and all we are seeking from you is an explanation of how you can dismiss it.

I figure it this way....it's hard enough trying to pin down a Bigfoot that's stuck inside these 3 dimensions, with us....it's another ballgame altogether to try to figure-out exactly what the deal is with a Bigfoot that pops in and out between universes...:boggled:.

But I didn't say anything about interdimensional stuff. Think Predator. Maybe the aliens are using something with there genetic experiment creations for cloaking the way they cloak their ships. If they can come to Earth across the vastness of space surely the technology to allow them to carry out their activities in relative stealth is not beyond them.

Remember when Burgstahler said he saw one "popping in" and he saw first the internal organs materializing? Maybe it's like Hollow man. Maybe he was on to something but he was wrong about the interdimensional stuff. What makes your theory better? Giant bipedal non-human primates living all across the continent and the world being seen hundreds of times a year without a single type specimen to show for it? Are you nuts?