Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film - Page 100

Hellbound · 9th June 2006, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by bruto

If all you have is a pile of manure, the size of the pile is not relevant.

Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls***ters that must be in the area.

Huntster · 9th June 2006, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Well that is the point of my post. You seem to sorely oversee that in all case, there is no data which are scientifically usable. There is as much sighting and photo for UFO. Do you belive in UFO ?

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

Quote:

The point is quite clear, I may not speak a very good englisch but here is it :
If for you PGF and some terribly inconsistent footprint and description are proof enough, then you should believe in a lot more than Sasquash.

Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not.

I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch.

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others.

Quote:

You should also believe in UFO for which we have as much proof and film. You should believe in fairy (lot of stills. And thousand of year of legend and sighting!). You should believe in loch ness monster. Do you ?

Maybe, no, and doubtful.

Quote:

And this is my point. What you hold as standard for proof is not scientifically acceptable for proof of existence of animals.

Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to.

Quote:

if you keep ignoring that, then fine with me. I will leave you with your belief.
But pelase at least eb consistent and start believing in all other mythological animals and sighting with the same proof standard.

I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others.

kitakaze · 9th June 2006, 10:25 AM

Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. *Stares at the drummer*

Originally Posted by Huntster

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

I know that's where the fallibility sticker is for me.

Mad Hom · 9th June 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

Holy fecal matter Batman, Fudd and I agree on yet another issue. Thats two things and counting Fudster wow someday we may get three...who knows.

Quote:

Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not.

::::sigh:::::: and Fudd believes himself to damn smart in the ways of the wild to have been hoaxed by someone,even if it's the simpler explanation. I mean We have "someones" and we have a long history of hoaxes,what we don't have is any decent evidence of a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size. Hmmm which one would be more plausible?

Quote:

I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch.

I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else.

No Fudley, you simply have a far more lenient acceptance level than us that's what is at work here. Feetprints,arsecasts,and plausibly hoaxed films from the 60's won't cut it with us,apparently it works for you though.

Quote:

And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others.

Yeah and guys like Loren Coleman aren't prejudiced in any way are they? He's only basically built a career around gullible Bleevers buying into the possibility of mermen,mandogs,the Jersey Devil,Chupacabras and Bigfeet. Geeeeeesh!!

Quote:

Maybe, no, and doubtful.

I don't get why Lake Monsters are doubtful and Bigfeet are plausible to you Fuddnik? Lake Monsters have just as mush anecdotal evidence,and people have wasted basically just as much film on them. Maybe it's because you haven't seen any flipper prints with your own eyes. Flipper prints that couldn't possibly be hoaxed. Is that it?

Quote:

Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to.

I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others.

Creed of the Footer:

Raise your right hand and repeat after me....

I will bleev in Bigfeet despite the lack of anything definitive and in the face of all plausibilty. I will do so vehemently.I will disregard human ingenuity with regards to hoaxes as will I feel that hoaxers probably wouldn't bother hoaxing in remote areas.I will hold eyewitness accounts as scientifically usable evidence because there is just so damn much of it to all be BS.I will also doggedly defend a plausibly hoaxed film because without it I have nothing but feetprints and stories. I will deflect the passage of time without anything definitive by simply stating that science is ignoring the issue and above all else I will not waiver in this bleef despite the painful inevitability of it all being utter bullshyte.

Amen!

RayG · 9th June 2006, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls***ters that must be in the area.

Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh**.

RayG

Hellbound · 9th June 2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh**.

RayG

Great, thanks.

Now, I'll be walking around giggling all day and getting funny looks.

"What the heck are you giggling about, Huntsman?"

"Hehe...little kid...*snicker*...cowboy outfit...*chuckle*...saddle...*snort snort*...huge manure pile...swinging his arms and yelling 'Yippi-Ki-Aye!'...[i]*Falls over rolling on the carpet*"

"Um, why don't you take the rest of next week off?" *aside* "Bob, call security!"

Aepervius · 9th June 2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas.

Why not?

Oh, I never asked whether you believe there is intelligent life or not. After all depending on drake equation parameter the universe is briming of life out there. What I asked you is if you believe there is UFO around containing extra terrestrial being.

Now let us compare apple and orange. The farthest we went in the last 40 years is at the door of our own solar system. You ae speaking of going at a distance which is waaaaaay beyond that.

First time of travel : even if they travel at near c speed (not even counting the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass m to a speed near c) the nearest star is 4 year away at best at c speed. Sub c would be worst. And with remote system that would be worst. So we are speaking of looooooong travel time here.

PS: using newtonian mecannic because I do not want to bother with relativity, a mass m of 10 ton (small UFO) at c speed require a kinetic energy of 4.5*10^20 joules to decelerate to speed zero. IF wiki is to be believed, The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×10^17 J. So now for our acceleration/deceleration no matter how much time it takes we need 5 tons of anti matter. I leave to the imagination of the reader on what containement would be needed (need more energy !).

Travel effect.
I would hate to imagine the effect of constant bombardement of the interstellar medium (yeah space is NOT empty) on a vessel at sub c speed. Now I would assume they would need the energy also t maintain themselves, even with minimal energy (hibernation) they would have to have a system constantly watching for meteor/debris/whatnot (which would have en even more catastrophal effect than some molecule at c speed). Other solution is automated vessel which would supress the hibernation. But we are not speaking of automated vessel, most people say there is alien in those (at least the eye witness). So on top add the energy needed for hibernation/life maintenance. So let us imagine their hibernation system consume only energy, but no water, oxygen and whatnot.... That is still a freaking amount of energy to spend and have a reserve. oh you might want to have anti matter or something really energy packing which add other problem like containement.

Another problem is the deceleration.
FYI with our knowledge of physic and propulsion, that would be quite a spectacle to accelerate or decelerate brutaly to sub light speed (over 0.01c) in term of energy dissipated. I ai't even speaking of near c. So they must be really slowly accelerating and decelerating (add more travel time).

So unless you imagine something really science fiction or are on LSD trip (wormhole or whatnot, but AFAIK even wormhole are theoretised to be in the fermi scale) we will certainly not see alien being landing on our planet without a veeerrry long travel. this means they would probably rather use hibernation/big vessel. Small size would be stupid and with big vessel you can have more fuel/material. Funny things is all UFO are relatively small (when was the last time one was kilometer long, except in V, Independance day and other sf film).

So in other word due to physic, that UFO with alien being are landing on our planet to anal probe people and kidnap/slaughter cow is.... Doubtful is the nicest word I can imagine. Still photo seems to cut it out for you. IMO arrogance is that imagining flimsy evidence is enough to proove existence. that is QUITE arrogant.

On my side I'll start beieving in alien when I start dissecting one and/or shaking his hand (maybe in the other order

).

Still you are free to believe in UFO, based on film/photo evidence. but those are not of scientific value.

Well, due to statistic, population biology, incredible variation in morphology, the fact we are speaking of north america (which isn't like , amazona), no bones, no corpse, many proof of hoax and so on.... Well IMO all of low scientific value, the same shadow of doubt (STRONG doubt) can be cast on sasq.

If you want scientific to start inquire on SASQ, it is your job to bring the scientific something which can interrest them, something with scientific value which cannot be hoaxed. Print can be hoaxed. Film can be, especially if blurry enough or/and old. Photo can be hoaxed. DNA can't (well not by amateur). Bones is difficult. Corpse would be impossible.

Unless you bring science something to bite on, you will be ignored. Mind you this might be what you wish : if science start inquiry, this might destroy fantasy of sasq being a real creature. As long as science ignore sasq you can still hold on hope and belief.

UrsulaV · 9th June 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. *Stares at the drummer*

Party at Bigfoot's place!

Mad Hom · 9th June 2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

Party at Bigfoot's place!

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

Skeptical Greg · 9th June 2006, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns..

Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ?

Guess I have now...

UrsulaV · 9th June 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mad Hom

I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place.

All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.

I'm there, as long as the evening doesn't progress to the point where we're casting testicle prints. That's generally when I decide it's time to head home.

bruto · 9th June 2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns..

Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ?

Guess I have now...

Just leave your dog at home. I hear they're rough on doggies.

demonologist · 9th June 2006, 08:53 PM

Question for bigfooters:

In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

thaiboxerken · 9th June 2006, 09:47 PM

It's because the gub'ment has gps microchips implanted into sasquatch, so that if there is ever an accident, they can haul the bodies off to Area 51.

kitakaze · 10th June 2006, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by demonologist

Question for bigfooters:

In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

*slaps forehead* Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? *mumbling in background* ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question.

kitakaze · 10th June 2006, 06:10 AM

So no testicle prints and no doggies? Man, where I come from we cast our nads and punt a few mutts around right after we take our coats off. Yeah, screw this. I'm going over to Chupacabra's place, I hear they do all sorts of wild crap over there.

UrsulaV · 10th June 2006, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by demonologist

Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?

It's a good question, demonologist, and one we've hashed out at great length a coupla types. The short answer is "Unfortunately, they've had an amazing run of luck."

The longer answer is sort of a confusing jumble goes something like: Since bears don't get hit by cars as often as, say, deer, and Bigfoot are more like bears than deer, but rarer than bears, the fact that there aren't many roadkilled bears means that there should be even fewer roadkilled Bigfoot, and so it's okay that there are no roadkilled Bigfoot.

Any attempt to point out areas where big, and even rare mammals are routinely hit by cars--bears, for example, do get whalloped regularly across the country, and cars are one of the major causes of mortality in the hyper-rare Florida panther--is shouted down on the premise that none of those statistics could possibly be from the Pacific Northwest, or at least a Bigfoot heavy area of the PNW.

If you then point out that damnit, we don't need hundreds and hundreds of roadkilled Bigfoot, just one stinkin' one mashed on a grille will be plenty, more than enough, all you could hope for, the Footer will then usually say "Hey, I'd like to see one too, believe me!"

Some of them will then mention reports, usually sans bibliography, of how someone claims they DID hit a Bigfoot with a car, although no body or sample was recovered. Attempts to track these reports back to a source often makes the Footer grumpy and inclined to sulk.

At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.

RayG · 10th June 2006, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.

Damn, dat be quoteable stuff. May I?

You should visit the BFF for some interesting debate.

RayG

UrsulaV · 10th June 2006, 10:13 AM

*laugh* Quote freely and at will.

demonologist · 10th June 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

*slaps forehead* Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? *mumbling in background* ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question.

If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case.

demonologist · 10th June 2006, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

It's a good question, demonologist, and one we've hashed out at great length a coupla types. The short answer is "Unfortunately, they've had an amazing run of luck."

The longer answer is sort of a confusing jumble goes something like: Since bears don't get hit by cars as often as, say, deer, and Bigfoot are more like bears than deer, but rarer than bears, the fact that there aren't many roadkilled bears means that there should be even fewer roadkilled Bigfoot, and so it's okay that there are no roadkilled Bigfoot.

Any attempt to point out areas where big, and even rare mammals are routinely hit by cars--bears, for example, do get whalloped regularly across the country, and cars are one of the major causes of mortality in the hyper-rare Florida panther--is shouted down on the premise that none of those statistics could possibly be from the Pacific Northwest, or at least a Bigfoot heavy area of the PNW.

If you then point out that damnit, we don't need hundreds and hundreds of roadkilled Bigfoot, just one stinkin' one mashed on a grille will be plenty, more than enough, all you could hope for, the Footer will then usually say "Hey, I'd like to see one too, believe me!"

Some of them will then mention reports, usually sans bibliography, of how someone claims they DID hit a Bigfoot with a car, although no body or sample was recovered. Attempts to track these reports back to a source often makes the Footer grumpy and inclined to sulk.

At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.

Well that's a somewhat reasonable excuse (if you assume a lot of luck) for this one possible accident. But there are many others, like I said. Bigfoot breaking a leg and getting attacked by wolves or simply bleeding to death. Bigfoot falling off a cliff to his death. Bigfoot having a heart attack on one of his hiking expeditions. I don't care which accident you pick, when you add them all together there has to be some accidents that take place where a human will someday walk past.

It sounds to me like you are saying that they simply dance around the question answering little as possible before finally ignoring it altogether when you press them.

RayG · 10th June 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by demonologist

If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case.

In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka: "Lighten up Francis."

RayG

UrsulaV · 10th June 2006, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by demonologist

It sounds to me like you are saying that they simply dance around the question answering little as possible before finally ignoring it altogether when you press them.

I commend you on your hearing.

Correa Neto · 10th June 2006, 05:56 PM

Remeber the talk on using dogs to track bears and bigfeet?

All BS. Gotta use cats!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5067912.stm

No laws against using cats for hunting, I guess...

kitakaze · 10th June 2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by demonologist

If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case.

Just me, not Ken, right? Yes, I didn't recall having a case but you feel free to assume so. I do think I was making light of the fact that as opposed to a quick peek, one would actually have to actually be familiar with this massive thread to have some quick answers to your questions (at least here, anyway). BTW, this is the 100th page on a bigfoot thread, so don't mind the goofiness too much.

LTC8K6 · 10th June 2006, 09:47 PM

Correa, I saw that "Cat trees bear" story and sasquatch was the first thing I thought of.

Apparently, even New Jersey still has ample woods and food for bears to do well, despite hunting.

Yet sasquatch can't seem to increase it's numbers, despite having vast resources and no competition.

Mad Hom · 10th June 2006, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Correa, I saw that "Cat trees bear" story and sasquatch was the first thing I thought of.

Apparently, even New Jersey still has ample woods and food for bears to do well, despite hunting.

Yet sasquatch can't seem to increase it's numbers, despite having vast resources and no competition.

Yet another thing to add to the mountain of stuff that points toward..

...Bigfeet being Bull Crap!!

I think a list of Anti-Bigfeet evidence needs to be compiled all in one place so Bigfoot Fan can take it all in and attempt to refute the entire chimichanga rather than just bits and peices at a time.

Time to go googling!!

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 02:31 AM

Hey Madness, this might not be exactly what you're looking for but I remember over at the BFF they had this best evidence for bigfoot top ten list that was extended quite a bit. If it hasn't been posted here before it might be a good idea to link it and see how it looks after going through it. I'd be interested to see that and I've thought of posting it here to see what people think but everytime I looked for it I couldn't find it. Hey Huntster, you know what I'm talking about, right?

Aepervius · 11th June 2006, 04:26 AM

ETA : ha, I understand now, you are also searching for it ! Sorry Kita. I am now looking on BFF searching the 16 pages of post with "list" as keyword. i am already in page 3. WTG.

I looked everywhere but the best I found about evidence is this, which speaks for itself :

toroughly empty board of evidence

And this is really, shall I say, ironic.

PS: Kita I can't even search for top ten because it is less than 3 character long...

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 05:16 AM

Yeah, the three character thing is what gave me a hard time, too. I remember that it was meant to be a thing you could print and keep in your wallet that was made in response to the same thing being done with a list supporting paranormal BF's (I hate to even type that 'cuz it makes me think the P word'll set of nutboy's radar). Or am I getting it mixed up? Hopefully Huntster will come to the rescue. Jeez, I guess I have to go look again, too. *sigh* ETA Any BFF posters know what I'm talking about? Diogenes? RayG? Anybody?

RayG · 11th June 2006, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

*sigh* ETA Any BFF posters know what I'm talking about? Diogenes? RayG? Anybody?

Was it The evidence that convinced you most?

ETA: Nevermind, the little light just came on. (Hey, I haven't had my first coffee yet!)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...60&#entry51160
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...79&#entry51579

RayG

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by RayG

ETA: Nevermind, the little light just came on. (Hey, I haven't had my first coffee yet!)

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...60&#entry51160
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...79&#entry51579

RayG

YES! You rock Ray Ray!

That's what I'm talkin' about. Wow, at first glance the version in the second link seems pretty weak compared to what I remember. Anyway, let's get to it!

Aepervius · 11th June 2006, 06:52 AM

...For a ROFL Emoticon. because the first 8 reasons are laughable. We have as sighting much for fairy than sasq (photo, 200 and even 1000 years of sighting), appeal to authorithy (policemen and goodall), appeal to incredulity (hoaxing location are too remote (why ??? If those evidence were collected, it was by human. If human evidence collecter were there, why not hoaxer?)), height hoaxing (never mind that before blue screen special effect costume industry had to come up with work around for big aliens), impossible to reproduce such a costume (which explain why certain people are so adamant on that part if those were the best evidence).

The 8 further aren't better. What they don't realize is that most DNA lab will give "inconclusive" as report or "unknown animal" if you do not give them sample to compare. The rest is at best being generous circunstencial evidence. At worst, it isn't even circonstencial...

Now really if only those 16 "evidence" are available, I think I was not far off categorizing Sasq existence as a "belief" and "faith".

Correa Neto · 11th June 2006, 07:24 AM

My advice:

Footers, you've gotta do better than that. The "best evidence" is very weak (PGF, dermal ridges, sightings, inconclusive DNA). And it seems we've already discussed it all at the bigfoot threads. Wanna believe bigfeet are real? OK, its your problem. But don't try to masquerade this as a "conclusion based in analysis of reliable evidence". Footers can repeat their mantras endlessly, but this will do nothing to turn bigfeet in to real creatures neither convince people with higher standards for evidence quality. On the contrary, they will just continue to make fools of themselves. And even if bigfeet were real, this sort of behavior only turns people that could really contribute in a positive way away from their cause.

Get a pack of cats and go hunting for bigfoot.

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 07:44 AM

OK, I'll be the whipping boy (mind the face, love) but while most of that list is quite laughable, there's just a couple things that came to mind. First, I don't find it unreasonable to say that if someone claims BF sightings by some thirty police officers a better reaction than calling an appeal to authority would be to ask for detailed, verifiable info on each of these claimed sightings. Certainly no one should imply infallibility on the part of the officers but it's a claim that I don't think should be brushed aside. Nevertheless, I've read plenty of reports involving various rangers, police, military that were more than a little dubious. Though the one involving the psychologist in Oregon always bugged me. *ducks* The other thing I found kinda irritating is with the mention of hair analysis, there too I would like to see some specifics. That and the problem of DNA analysis of hairs being useless with out a type specimen. If two separate samples from widely separate locations were collected under good conditions ruling out hoax, contamination, etc. I think that would be pretty interesting. Of course someone bringing in a frickin' body would be far more interesting.

demonologist · 11th June 2006, 07:45 AM

So I'm getting into this late and I should probably go back and read this thread more... but SETI has a podcast on their website with an interview with a researcher who found the guy who claimed he wore the costume, and the guy who made the costume. What is the cover for these two witnesses? Lying?

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 07:56 AM

Have any free time?BTW, anyone know a good anti-sarcasm emoticon? Edited for silly spelling.

UrsulaV · 11th June 2006, 08:04 AM

Well, Jane Goodall is, by all accounts, a terribly nice person...but that doesn't change the fact that this is an appeal to authority. Very smart people can be wrong. I respect her work enormously, but that wouldn't stop me from calling her a loony if she acted like one. I respect the late Dian Fossey's work, too, but by all accounts she was a complete whackjob.

As for thirty policeman--pffff! Cops are regular human beings, and just as prone to delusion and misidentification as the rest of us. There are cops who believe in the Loch Ness Monster, too, but nowhere on the little badge does it say "To Protect and Serve and Accurately Report the Existence of Relic Plesiosaurs."

A thousand sightings sounds like a lot, although has been pointed out by others, compared to crop circles and UFOs, not extraordinary. I'd need to know more about specific individual sightings to speak to their ability to support the case for Bigfoot.

As for historical sightings--well, there's the Devil Mowing crop circle print from the Middle Ages and people who claim that aliens hit Nuremburg in 1561. Guess the aliens got here before Bigfoot.

Oh, yes, the "there are Native American myths about Bigfoot" card. There are Native American myths about green coyotes that live in the sun, and a lodge where the walls are covered in wild vaginas,* too, but I'm not holding my breath. The South American Yanomamo believe that if you take enough hallucinogenic snuff, the little blue men that live in the woods come out of the forest and live in your chest and give you magic, but somehow, I have missed the reports of any expeditions to the Amazon in search of snuff-smurfs.

Gaw, this one--the cryptozoology tendency towards every-myth-is-really-a-real-creature thing really sticks in my craw. It strikes me as so--so--condescending, I suppose. As if native peoples aren't allowed to just make crap up like everybody else. Ask these same people if they're looking into the existence of the Tooth Fairy, and they get all pissy, but it's the same damn thing. People tell stories. Native peoples are as big a pack of creative geniuses and artists and liars and bull****ers as the rest of us, and they made crap up left, right, and sideways. Trying to shoehorn your pet crypto or aliens or whatever into native legends is as bad as trying to shoehorn your politics or religion or anything else in. Let the myths be myths.

*cough*

Sorry, my senior thesis was on the romanticization of hunter-gatherer societies, and I'm obviously still seething about it, nearly a decade later. *grin* Weird hot-button issue, I know...

*Really. I think it was a Blackfoot myth, if memory serves, and one of the standard set about why men ruled women, rather than the other way around, as the hero...um...tamed the wild vaginas...by the end of the story...(I'm not making this up, I swear. My imagination is freakish, but this is a whole 'nother level of weird.) Had to give 'em mad props for creativity, anyway.

kitakaze · 11th June 2006, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by UrsulaV

Well, Jane Goodall is, by all accounts, a terribly nice person...but that doesn't change the fact that this is an appeal to authority.

Ursula, you ever heard the NPR interview where she says all that stuff? I have and holy cow, that ain't helping anyones case.

Quote:

As for thirty policeman--pffff! Cops are regular human beings, and just as prone to delusion and misidentification as the rest of us.

Yeah, just as prone, no argument there but they are supposedto be better equiped to record accurately details of a given situation but yeah, there as fallible as the rest of us. Anyway, some says thirty cops saw BF, I say show me.

Quote:

Oh, yes, the "there are Native American myths about Bigfoot" card.

As a kid growing up in Victoria, BC I used to love going to the Royal British Colombian Museum and seeing their wicked Haida displays and looking at carvings of thunderbirds and hearing about how they ate your brains out if they caught you.

Quote:

There are Native American myths about green coyotes that live in the sun, and a lodge where the walls are covered in wild vaginas,*

Takin' a walk now.

Correa Neto · 11th June 2006, 08:49 AM

Yep. Ursula summarized it all pretty well.

Cops see UFOs, bigfeet and ghosts... Cops can be fooled, so can shrinks, so can we all. Eyewitness testimony is prone to flaws. Specially ages after the "sighting" when the mind starts filling the voids with "details" that weren't there. What was once a vague indistinct shape now has arms, weird tracks become perfect footprints of a giant ape and so on.

Jane Goodall thinks bigfeet may be real. But we are looking for evidence, not for beliefs. And the Pope belives in the Holy Trinity. I could point you several PhDs with weird beliefs. So what? Beside being an appeal to authority, one could quite well point that most zoologists and biologists think bigfoot are not real. Please spare our time and do not use the "who they are", "this is not going to be settled by numbers", "Gallileo was considered nuts", "science once believed heavier-than-the-air flying machines were impossible" and similar bogus arguments. We´ve deal with them before.

The DNA stuff... Heck, "Frontiers of Science"? Can unconclusive DNA sample from site #1 be compared to unconclusive DNA sample from site #2? Unconclusive = unidentified? AFAIK we know how similar human DNA is to chimps, gorillas and neanderthals... So, a DNA sample from a bigfoot, assuming its a high primate, would be identified as being from an unknown large primate (X% similar to chimps, humans, whatever), not as unconclusive. It would be pretty neat evidence, Nature-quality material. That was Nature-quality, and not "Frontiers of Science" quality. Where's the paper? Conclusion? No reliable evidence. Not even a hint.

Ah, its so good to see someone else who also thinks the bon sauvage stuff is pure crap!!!!! 1000 kisses and hugs for you Ursula!

Now if you excuse me, I have to keep struggling to avoid making jokes about wild vaginas...

9th June 2006, 11:56 AM	#3965
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by Huntsman Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls*ters that must be in the area. Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

9th June 2006, 02:27 PM	#3967
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,773	UFO Huntster, UFO Originally Posted by Huntster I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas. Why not? Oh, I never asked whether you believe there is intelligent life or not. After all depending on drake equation parameter the universe is briming of life out there. What I asked you is if you believe there is UFO around containing extra terrestrial being. Now let us compare apple and orange. The farthest we went in the last 40 years is at the door of our own solar system. You ae speaking of going at a distance which is waaaaaay beyond that. First time of travel : even if they travel at near c speed (not even counting the amount of energy required to accelerate a mass m to a speed near c) the nearest star is 4 year away at best at c speed. Sub c would be worst. And with remote system that would be worst. So we are speaking of looooooong travel time here. PS: using newtonian mecannic because I do not want to bother with relativity, a mass m of 10 ton (small UFO) at c speed require a kinetic energy of 4.5*10^20 joules to decelerate to speed zero. IF wiki is to be believed, The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×10^17 J. So now for our acceleration/deceleration no matter how much time it takes we need 5 tons of anti matter. I leave to the imagination of the reader on what containement would be needed (need more energy !). Travel effect. I would hate to imagine the effect of constant bombardement of the interstellar medium (yeah space is NOT empty) on a vessel at sub c speed. Now I would assume they would need the energy also t maintain themselves, even with minimal energy (hibernation) they would have to have a system constantly watching for meteor/debris/whatnot (which would have en even more catastrophal effect than some molecule at c speed). Other solution is automated vessel which would supress the hibernation. But we are not speaking of automated vessel, most people say there is alien in those (at least the eye witness). So on top add the energy needed for hibernation/life maintenance. So let us imagine their hibernation system consume only energy, but no water, oxygen and whatnot.... That is still a freaking amount of energy to spend and have a reserve. oh you might want to have anti matter or something really energy packing which add other problem like containement. Another problem is the deceleration. FYI with our knowledge of physic and propulsion, that would be quite a spectacle to accelerate or decelerate brutaly to sub light speed (over 0.01c) in term of energy dissipated. I ai't even speaking of near c. So they must be really slowly accelerating and decelerating (add more travel time). So unless you imagine something really science fiction or are on LSD trip (wormhole or whatnot, but AFAIK even wormhole are theoretised to be in the fermi scale) we will certainly not see alien being landing on our planet without a veeerrry long travel. this means they would probably rather use hibernation/big vessel. Small size would be stupid and with big vessel you can have more fuel/material. Funny things is all UFO are relatively small (when was the last time one was kilometer long, except in V, Independance day and other sf film). So in other word due to physic, that UFO with alien being are landing on our planet to anal probe people and kidnap/slaughter cow is.... Doubtful is the nicest word I can imagine. Still photo seems to cut it out for you. IMO arrogance is that imagining flimsy evidence is enough to proove existence. that is QUITE arrogant. On my side I'll start beieving in alien when I start dissecting one and/or shaking his hand (maybe in the other order ). Still you are free to believe in UFO, based on film/photo evidence. but those are not of scientific value. Well, due to statistic, population biology, incredible variation in morphology, the fact we are speaking of north america (which isn't like , amazona), no bones, no corpse, many proof of hoax and so on.... Well IMO all of low scientific value, the same shadow of doubt (STRONG doubt) can be cast on sasq. If you want scientific to start inquire on SASQ, it is your job to bring the scientific something which can interrest them, something with scientific value which cannot be hoaxed. Print can be hoaxed. Film can be, especially if blurry enough or/and old. Photo can be hoaxed. DNA can't (well not by amateur). Bones is difficult. Corpse would be impossible. Unless you bring science something to bite on, you will be ignored. Mind you this might be what you wish : if science start inquiry, this might destroy fantasy of sasq being a real creature. As long as science ignore sasq you can still hold on hope and belief.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 9th June 2006 at 02:42 PM. Reason: calculate E kinetic

9th June 2006, 02:44 PM	#3968
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by kitakaze Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. Stares at the drummer Party at Bigfoot's place!
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

9th June 2006, 03:19 PM	#3969
Mad Hom Loose Cannon Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Some Anonymous Super Max Prison Posts: 477	Originally Posted by UrsulaV Party at Bigfoot's place! I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place. All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW.
	Last edited by Mad Hom; 9th June 2006 at 03:23 PM.

9th June 2006, 06:00 PM	#3970
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,874	Originally Posted by Mad Hom I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place. All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW. Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns.. Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ? Guess I have now...
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

9th June 2006, 09:58 AM	#3961
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,942	Originally Posted by bruto If all you have is a pile of manure, the size of the pile is not relevant. Well, it does let you determine a minimum number of bulls***ters that must be in the area.

9th June 2006, 10:02 AM	#3962
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Aepervius Well that is the point of my post. You seem to sorely oversee that in all case, there is no data which are scientifically usable. There is as much sighting and photo for UFO. Do you belive in UFO ? I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas. Why not? Quote: The point is quite clear, I may not speak a very good englisch but here is it : If for you PGF and some terribly inconsistent footprint and description are proof enough, then you should believe in a lot more than Sasquash. Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not. I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch. I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else. And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others. Quote: You should also believe in UFO for which we have as much proof and film. You should believe in fairy (lot of stills. And thousand of year of legend and sighting!). You should believe in loch ness monster. Do you ? Maybe, no, and doubtful. Quote: And this is my point. What you hold as standard for proof is not scientifically acceptable for proof of existence of animals. Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to. Quote: if you keep ignoring that, then fine with me. I will leave you with your belief. But pelase at least eb consistent and start believing in all other mythological animals and sighting with the same proof standard. I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others.

9th June 2006, 10:25 AM	#3963
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Woooh! A hundred pages, baby! Beer anyone? Bigfoot? No? Just with Ken, eh? Suit yourself. Stares at the drummer Originally Posted by Huntster I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else. I know that's where the fallibility sticker is for me.

9th June 2006, 11:27 AM	#3964
Mad Hom Loose Cannon Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Some Anonymous Super Max Prison Posts: 477	Originally Posted by Huntster I believe it is arrogant to state that, with all the stars and planets out there, that we are the only life in the universe. Are there visitors from other planets flying here? I don't know. We travel to other celestial bodies, and send unmanned craft to far flung areas. Why not? Holy fecal matter Batman, Fudd and I agree on yet another issue. Thats two things and counting Fudster wow someday we may get three...who knows. Quote: Not necessarily. I have personally seen footprints which I believe were left by one of these creatures. That, for me, is compelling evidence. For you it's not. ::::sigh:::::: and Fudd believes himself to damn smart in the ways of the wild to have been hoaxed by someone,even if it's the simpler explanation. I mean We have "someones" and we have a long history of hoaxes,what we don't have is any decent evidence of a Hairy Biped of Unusual Size. Hmmm which one would be more plausible? Quote: I have not seen a lake monster, nor have I seen an extraterrestrial vehicle (I have seen "unidentified flying objects", but I don't believe they were extraterrestrial vehicles), nor have I seen a sasquatch. I simply accept what evidence I reason as valid, and reject that which I reason is not, just like you and everybody else. No Fudley, you simply have a far more lenient acceptance level than us that's what is at work here. Feetprints,arsecasts,and plausibly hoaxed films from the 60's won't cut it with us,apparently it works for you though. Quote: And one thing I don't consider "valid evidence" is the uninformed or prejudiced opinions of others. Yeah and guys like Loren Coleman aren't prejudiced in any way are they? He's only basically built a career around gullible Bleevers buying into the possibility of mermen,mandogs,the Jersey Devil,Chupacabras and Bigfeet. Geeeeeesh!! Quote: Maybe, no, and doubtful. I don't get why Lake Monsters are doubtful and Bigfeet are plausible to you Fuddnik? Lake Monsters have just as mush anecdotal evidence,and people have wasted basically just as much film on them. Maybe it's because you haven't seen any flipper prints with your own eyes. Flipper prints that couldn't possibly be hoaxed. Is that it? Quote: Yup. However, it is my opinion that the existing evidence of sasquatch is enough for science to invest a little more resources and interest in to. I will believe what I reason worthy of belief, regardless what others opine. I refuse to accept rigid standards placed on me by others. Creed of the Footer: Raise your right hand and repeat after me.... I will bleev in Bigfeet despite the lack of anything definitive and in the face of all plausibilty. I will do so vehemently.I will disregard human ingenuity with regards to hoaxes as will I feel that hoaxers probably wouldn't bother hoaxing in remote areas.I will hold eyewitness accounts as scientifically usable evidence because there is just so damn much of it to all be BS.I will also doggedly defend a plausibly hoaxed film because without it I have nothing but feetprints and stories. I will deflect the passage of time without anything definitive by simply stating that science is ignoring the issue and above all else I will not waiver in this bleef despite the painful inevitability of it all being utter bullshyte. Amen!

9th June 2006, 12:09 PM	#3966
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,942	Originally Posted by RayG Maybe, but to the optimist it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a pony under that pile of sh*. RayG Great, thanks. Now, I'll be walking around giggling all day and getting funny looks. "What the heck are you giggling about, Huntsman?" "Hehe...little kid...snicker...cowboy outfit...chuckle...saddle...snort snort...huge manure pile...swinging his arms and yelling 'Yippi-Ki-Aye!'...[i]Falls over rolling on the carpet" "Um, why don't you take the rest of next week off?" aside* "Bob, call security!"

9th June 2006, 06:58 PM	#3971
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by Mad Hom I'm all for it....that is of course if we can FIND his place. All I have seen of it is a plaster "cave" cast, a few grainy photos of the entrance,and a mail box made out of bark and tree limbs inexplicably placed out in the middle of Nowhere,PNW. I'm there, as long as the evening doesn't progress to the point where we're casting testicle prints. That's generally when I decide it's time to head home.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

9th June 2006, 07:46 PM	#3972
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,191	Originally Posted by Diogenes Just follow the trail of twisted saplings and rock cairns.. Oh, and did I mentiontion the horrible stench ? Guess I have now... Just leave your dog at home. I hear they're rough on doggies.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

9th June 2006, 08:53 PM	#3973
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79	Question for bigfooters: In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents?
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79

9th June 2006, 09:47 PM	#3974
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	It's because the gub'ment has gps microchips implanted into sasquatch, so that if there is ever an accident, they can haul the bodies off to Area 51.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

10th June 2006, 06:01 AM	#3975
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by demonologist Question for bigfooters: In my experience the most common reason given for why we don't find bodies or bones is that they live deep in the woods where humans don't go. Now, aside from the fact that this is speculation based on 0 evidence (we don't know the living habits of creatures we don't even know exist), my question is, assuming that is correct, why don't Sasquatches ever have accidents? Because of all of hte alleged accounters we know they travel to places were humans frequent for some reason. Why don't they ever fall off a cliff or break a leg and die before someone finds them? Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents? slaps forehead Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? mumbling in background ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question.

10th June 2006, 06:10 AM	#3976
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	So no testicle prints and no doggies? Man, where I come from we cast our nads and punt a few mutts around right after we take our coats off. Yeah, screw this. I'm going over to Chupacabra's place, I hear they do all sorts of wild crap over there.

10th June 2006, 06:56 AM	#3977
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by demonologist Why hasn't a single Sasquatch gotten hit by a car (since they are often spotted crossing roads)? Where are the accidents? It's a good question, demonologist, and one we've hashed out at great length a coupla types. The short answer is "Unfortunately, they've had an amazing run of luck." The longer answer is sort of a confusing jumble goes something like: Since bears don't get hit by cars as often as, say, deer, and Bigfoot are more like bears than deer, but rarer than bears, the fact that there aren't many roadkilled bears means that there should be even fewer roadkilled Bigfoot, and so it's okay that there are no roadkilled Bigfoot. Any attempt to point out areas where big, and even rare mammals are routinely hit by cars--bears, for example, do get whalloped regularly across the country, and cars are one of the major causes of mortality in the hyper-rare Florida panther--is shouted down on the premise that none of those statistics could possibly be from the Pacific Northwest, or at least a Bigfoot heavy area of the PNW. If you then point out that damnit, we don't need hundreds and hundreds of roadkilled Bigfoot, just one stinkin' one mashed on a grille will be plenty, more than enough, all you could hope for, the Footer will then usually say "Hey, I'd like to see one too, believe me!" Some of them will then mention reports, usually sans bibliography, of how someone claims they DID hit a Bigfoot with a car, although no body or sample was recovered. Attempts to track these reports back to a source often makes the Footer grumpy and inclined to sulk. At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

10th June 2006, 08:55 AM	#3978
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by UrsulaV At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits. Damn, dat be quoteable stuff. May I? You should visit the BFF for some interesting debate. RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio Last edited by RayG; 10th June 2006 at 08:58 AM.

10th June 2006, 10:13 AM	#3979
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	laugh Quote freely and at will.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

10th June 2006, 10:23 AM	#3980
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by kitakaze slaps forehead Man, those are a couple of stumpers, there! Sheezuz, you'd think someone woulda brought that up at some point. ...Heh? What's that? mumbling in background ...Really? That much, eh? Well, I didn't know I was actually supposed to remember stuff! OK, demonologist, I've just consulted with the infinite universe(s) and here's the deal. It would appear Bigfoot does not have accidents because they are not insured for them. Case closed, next question. If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case.
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79

10th June 2006, 10:27 AM	#3981
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79	Originally Posted by UrsulaV It's a good question, demonologist, and one we've hashed out at great length a coupla types. The short answer is "Unfortunately, they've had an amazing run of luck." The longer answer is sort of a confusing jumble goes something like: Since bears don't get hit by cars as often as, say, deer, and Bigfoot are more like bears than deer, but rarer than bears, the fact that there aren't many roadkilled bears means that there should be even fewer roadkilled Bigfoot, and so it's okay that there are no roadkilled Bigfoot. Any attempt to point out areas where big, and even rare mammals are routinely hit by cars--bears, for example, do get whalloped regularly across the country, and cars are one of the major causes of mortality in the hyper-rare Florida panther--is shouted down on the premise that none of those statistics could possibly be from the Pacific Northwest, or at least a Bigfoot heavy area of the PNW. If you then point out that damnit, we don't need hundreds and hundreds of roadkilled Bigfoot, just one stinkin' one mashed on a grille will be plenty, more than enough, all you could hope for, the Footer will then usually say "Hey, I'd like to see one too, believe me!" Some of them will then mention reports, usually sans bibliography, of how someone claims they DID hit a Bigfoot with a car, although no body or sample was recovered. Attempts to track these reports back to a source often makes the Footer grumpy and inclined to sulk. At the end of the day, the skeptic yells "But you haven't answered my question!" and then the Footer yells "Your question can't be answered! You won't be satisfied with anything but a body, you lousy cynic, because every time I say something, you ask more questions!" and the skeptic yells "But we have to ask questions! What the hell is science if we don't ask questions?!" and then they glare at each other across the room for awhile and retire to their respective corners and David Attenborough does the voice over about the cycle of forum life being complete for another day and somebody rolls the credits. Well that's a somewhat reasonable excuse (if you assume a lot of luck) for this one possible accident. But there are many others, like I said. Bigfoot breaking a leg and getting attacked by wolves or simply bleeding to death. Bigfoot falling off a cliff to his death. Bigfoot having a heart attack on one of his hiking expeditions. I don't care which accident you pick, when you add them all together there has to be some accidents that take place where a human will someday walk past. It sounds to me like you are saying that they simply dance around the question answering little as possible before finally ignoring it altogether when you press them.
demonologist Scholar Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 79

10th June 2006, 10:31 AM	#3982
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by demonologist If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case. In the immortal words of Sgt. Hulka: "Lighten up Francis." RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio

10th June 2006, 11:21 AM	#3983
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by demonologist It sounds to me like you are saying that they simply dance around the question answering little as possible before finally ignoring it altogether when you press them. I commend you on your hearing.
UrsulaV Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 957

10th June 2006, 05:56 PM	#3984
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	Remeber the talk on using dogs to track bears and bigfeet? All BS. Gotta use cats!!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5067912.stm No laws against using cats for hunting, I guess...
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

10th June 2006, 06:20 PM	#3985
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by demonologist If you just wanted to dodge the question you should have simply ignored it. A sarcastic goofy reply doesn't help your case. Just me, not Ken, right? Yes, I didn't recall having a case but you feel free to assume so. I do think I was making light of the fact that as opposed to a quick peek, one would actually have to actually be familiar with this massive thread to have some quick answers to your questions (at least here, anyway). BTW, this is the 100th page on a bigfoot thread, so don't mind the goofiness too much.

10th June 2006, 09:47 PM	#3986
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,696	Correa, I saw that "Cat trees bear" story and sasquatch was the first thing I thought of. Apparently, even New Jersey still has ample woods and food for bears to do well, despite hunting. Yet sasquatch can't seem to increase it's numbers, despite having vast resources and no competition.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

10th June 2006, 10:17 PM	#3987
Mad Hom Loose Cannon Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Some Anonymous Super Max Prison Posts: 477	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Correa, I saw that "Cat trees bear" story and sasquatch was the first thing I thought of. Apparently, even New Jersey still has ample woods and food for bears to do well, despite hunting. Yet sasquatch can't seem to increase it's numbers, despite having vast resources and no competition. Yet another thing to add to the mountain of stuff that points toward.. ...Bigfeet being Bull Crap!! I think a list of Anti-Bigfeet evidence needs to be compiled all in one place so Bigfoot Fan can take it all in and attempt to refute the entire chimichanga rather than just bits and peices at a time. Time to go googling!!
	Last edited by Mad Hom; 10th June 2006 at 10:25 PM.

11th June 2006, 02:31 AM	#3988
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Hey Madness, this might not be exactly what you're looking for but I remember over at the BFF they had this best evidence for bigfoot top ten list that was extended quite a bit. If it hasn't been posted here before it might be a good idea to link it and see how it looks after going through it. I'd be interested to see that and I've thought of posting it here to see what people think but everytime I looked for it I couldn't find it. Hey Huntster, you know what I'm talking about, right?

11th June 2006, 04:26 AM	#3989
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,773	In which board is it ? Can't find it... ETA : ha, I understand now, you are also searching for it ! Sorry Kita. I am now looking on BFF searching the 16 pages of post with "list" as keyword. i am already in page 3. WTG. I looked everywhere but the best I found about evidence is this, which speaks for itself : toroughly empty board of evidence And this is really, shall I say, ironic. PS: Kita I can't even search for top ten because it is less than 3 character long...
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 11th June 2006 at 04:46 AM. Reason: ETA I am a moron

11th June 2006, 05:16 AM	#3990
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Yeah, the three character thing is what gave me a hard time, too. I remember that it was meant to be a thing you could print and keep in your wallet that was made in response to the same thing being done with a list supporting paranormal BF's (I hate to even type that 'cuz it makes me think the P word'll set of nutboy's radar). Or am I getting it mixed up? Hopefully Huntster will come to the rescue. Jeez, I guess I have to go look again, too. sigh ETA Any BFF posters know what I'm talking about? Diogenes? RayG? Anybody?
	Last edited by kitakaze; 11th June 2006 at 05:22 AM.

11th June 2006, 05:38 AM	#3991
RayG Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,326	Originally Posted by kitakaze sigh ETA Any BFF posters know what I'm talking about? Diogenes? RayG? Anybody? Was it The evidence that convinced you most? ETA: Nevermind, the little light just came on. (Hey, I haven't had my first coffee yet!) http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...60&#entry51160 http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...79&#entry51579 RayG
	__________________ Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio Last edited by RayG; 11th June 2006 at 05:53 AM.

11th June 2006, 06:09 AM	#3992
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	Originally Posted by RayG ETA: Nevermind, the little light just came on. (Hey, I haven't had my first coffee yet!) http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...60&#entry51160 http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...79&#entry51579 RayG YES! You rock Ray Ray! That's what I'm talkin' about. Wow, at first glance the version in the second link seems pretty weak compared to what I remember. Anyway, let's get to it!

11th June 2006, 06:52 AM	#3993
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,773	I need to look at the FAQ... ...For a ROFL Emoticon. because the first 8 reasons are laughable. We have as sighting much for fairy than sasq (photo, 200 and even 1000 years of sighting), appeal to authorithy (policemen and goodall), appeal to incredulity (hoaxing location are too remote (why ??? If those evidence were collected, it was by human. If human evidence collecter were there, why not hoaxer?)), height hoaxing (never mind that before blue screen special effect costume industry had to come up with work around for big aliens), impossible to reproduce such a costume (which explain why certain people are so adamant on that part if those were the best evidence). The 8 further aren't better. What they don't realize is that most DNA lab will give "inconclusive" as report or "unknown animal" if you do not give them sample to compare. The rest is at best being generous circunstencial evidence. At worst, it isn't even circonstencial... Now really if only those 16 "evidence" are available, I think I was not far off categorizing Sasq existence as a "belief" and "faith".
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life. Last edited by Aepervius; 11th June 2006 at 06:55 AM.

11th June 2006, 07:24 AM	#3994
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	My advice: Footers, you've gotta do better than that. The "best evidence" is very weak (PGF, dermal ridges, sightings, inconclusive DNA). And it seems we've already discussed it all at the bigfoot threads. Wanna believe bigfeet are real? OK, its your problem. But don't try to masquerade this as a "conclusion based in analysis of reliable evidence". Footers can repeat their mantras endlessly, but this will do nothing to turn bigfeet in to real creatures neither convince people with higher standards for evidence quality. On the contrary, they will just continue to make fools of themselves. And even if bigfeet were real, this sort of behavior only turns people that could really contribute in a positive way away from their cause. Get a pack of cats and go hunting for bigfoot.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

11th June 2006, 07:44 AM	#3995
kitakaze Resident DJ/NSA Supermole Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada Posts: 9,461	OK, I'll be the whipping boy (mind the face, love) but while most of that list is quite laughable, there's just a couple things that came to mind. First, I don't find it unreasonable to say that if someone claims BF sightings by some thirty police officers a better reaction than calling an appeal to authority would be to ask for detailed, verifiable info on each of these claimed sightings. Certainly no one should imply infallibility on the part of the officers but it's a claim that I don't think should be brushed aside. Nevertheless, I've read plenty of reports involving various rangers, police, military that were more than a little dubious. Though the one involving the psychologist in Oregon always bugged me. ducks The other thing I found kinda irritating is with the mention of hair analysis, there too I would like to see some specifics. That and the problem of DNA analysis of hairs being useless with out a type specimen. If two separate samples from widely separate locations were collected under good conditions ruling out hoax, contamination, etc. I think that would be pretty interesting. Of course someone bringing in a frickin' body would be far more interesting.