Bigfoot

[Infinity Blade]

Nov 4, 2019 19:42:16 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

Nov 4, 2019 0:06:47 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Heck for what it's worth, there are critically endangered species that are extremely rare and only live in a few, or even as little as one small pocket in the world, and yet we've still been able to clearly document them.

And yet, despite what you said...scientists to this day, still say that there's other undiscovered creatures out there, that are yet to be discovered.

Also, humans have documented probably millions of different species in our worlds oceans, and yet only 5% of our worlds oceans have been explored. So what you said proves nothing.

Yes, but how many of them are creatures the likes of which were, frankly, unprecedented? Just to provide an example, it wasn't shocking when we found a new species of tapir living in the Amazon rainforest because it was already a well-known fact that tapirs lived in the Amazon. What clear precedent do we have specifically for Bigfoot, what's supposed to be a large North American ape-like creature? The only record of hominids (particularly humans) in the North American fossil record are H. sapiens that appeared during the Pleistocene epoch.

The oceans and their unexplored realms have nothing to do with this. We're talking about whether or not Bigfoot actually exists in places where we've supposedly sighted it, or in other words, places we've explored.

[dinosauria101]

mountainlord

Maybe Bigfoot could have evolved from something that was already extinct (i.e. early humans)?

[theropod]

Nov 4, 2019 22:06:15 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

mountainlord

Maybe Bigfoot could have evolved from something that was already extinct (i.e. early humans)?

How can something evolve from something that is already extinct?

[dinosauria101]

Nov 5, 2019 2:01:49 GMT 5 theropod said:

Nov 4, 2019 22:06:15 GMT 5 dinosauria101 said:

mountainlord

Maybe Bigfoot could have evolved from something that was already extinct (i.e. early humans)?

How can something evolve from something that is already extinct?

Sorry, misworded it. I meant if Bigfoot DOES exist, it could have evolved from early people when they still existed

[theropod]

Well, duh. Everything evolved from something else, so if there really were elusive giant hominins in North America, of course they would have evolved from earlier hominins. But there is no evidence for any hominin except H. sapiens having ever made it to the Americas.

[smedz]

Exactly, if bigfoots exist, then we should have dung, bones, etc. Especially since bigfoots are also reported in places like Ohio which have a high amount of people and there's no way something that big could hide in Ohio and other states in the region. I can say safely (apologies if this sounds a bit arrogant) because I live in Ohio.

[mountainlord]

Nov 4, 2019 19:51:46 GMT 5 theropod said:

I did, and none of it appeared to be peer-reviewed. With such groundbreaking evidence, one would expect there to be at least one full study in a proper journal (In fact I’d expect such a study to make it into Nature, no questions asked). So surely such a thing exists, since you have repeatedly hinted at conclusive DNA evidence for the existence of Bigfoot?

As for your earlier claim that the Patterson footage would have been impossible to produce back in 1967.

These are the primitive hominids shown in 2001 - A Space Odyssey, released in 1968. Ergo, probably pretty much the same age as the Patterson footage. Creating a sufficiently realistic-looking ape costume wasn’t an issue even back then.

What kind of evidence would you expect in order to "debunk" this footage? Then we can evaluate the likelihood of actually finding said evidence given that the footage is fake.

I already explained. I'm not gonna go round in circles with you guys now. The top hollywood costume designers at that time said they couldn't replicate the Patterson footage. It looked too real to pull off. And still to this day, it still hasn't been debunked. Which speaks volumes to its credibilty.

And why do the hair samples have to be peer-reviewed? Meldrum and Chilcutt are very respected and credible leading experts in this field. Their conclusions are more than enough. Melba Ketchum has also tested Bigfoot hair and concluded they no doubt exist.

And like I said before, most scientists don't want to risk ridicule. For some reason, they treat Bigfoot like its believing in Santa Clause or something. Its ridiculous.

[mountainlord]

Nov 4, 2019 20:05:06 GMT 5 Infinity Blade said:

Nov 4, 2019 19:42:16 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

And yet, despite what you said...scientists to this day, still say that there's other undiscovered creatures out there, that are yet to be discovered.

Also, humans have documented probably millions of different species in our worlds oceans, and yet only 5% of our worlds oceans have been explored. So what you said proves nothing.

Yes, but how many of them are creatures the likes of which were, frankly, unprecedented? Just to provide an example, it wasn't shocking when we found a new species of tapir living in the Amazon rainforest because it was already a well-known fact that tapirs lived in the Amazon. What clear precedent do we have specifically for Bigfoot, what's supposed to be a large North American ape-like creature? The only record of hominids (particularly humans) in the North American fossil record are H. sapiens that appeared during the Pleistocene epoch.

The oceans and their unexplored realms have nothing to do with this. We're talking about whether or not Bigfoot actually exists in places where we've supposedly sighted it, or in other words, places we've explored.

But the thing is....THERE IS EVIDENCE for Bigfoot's existence. I showed it. From hair samples, footprints, vocalizations, body casts, thousands of ongoing credible sightings etc etc....

I don't want to keep repeating myself now.

[mountainlord]

Nov 5, 2019 3:25:31 GMT 5 smedz said:

Exactly, if bigfoots exist, then we should have dung, bones, etc. Especially since bigfoots are also reported in places like Ohio which have a high amount of people and there's no way something that big could hide in Ohio and other states in the region. I can say safely (apologies if this sounds a bit arrogant) because I live in Ohio.

There's people that have lived in the woods their whole life and have never come across a single Black bear skeleton, and there's thousands of bears all over the place. The Rainforest soil also quickly dissolves the bones of an animal, which makes it almost impossible to find.

Now, add that factor to the most rare and elusive mammal in North America, and it makes it impossible to find, period.

Also, there's a theory that they might even bury their dead. Like people.

[Infinity Blade]

But the thing is....THERE IS EVIDENCE for Bigfoot's existence. I showed it. From hair samples, footprints, vocalizations, body casts, thousands of ongoing credible sightings etc etc....

I don't want to keep repeating myself now.

You just said we have "hundreds of REAL footprints, DNA hair samples, credible sightings to this day, the infamous Sasquatch body print, recorded Bigfoot vocalizations, the infamous Patterson/Gimlin footage and more" and posted some links and videos to a few people basically saying "the evidence is totally compelling, Bigfoot is totally real"...without considering any disputes or criticisms thereof in a topic as contentious as this. I mean, just from searching around for several minutes on the Internet I've found that Jimmy Chilcutt's footprint evidence has been disputed-> and 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous apes (Bigfoot among them) to have been found to be from known animals under closer scrutiny->.

If you don't want to keep repeating yourself like this, then fine, do what you please.

[theropod]

I already explained. I'm not gonna go round in circles with you guys now.

Nobody is forcing you to go around in circles. I care little about what "The top hollywood costume designers at that time said" when movies from that time clearly demonstrate this footage could have been produced back then.

It looked too real to pull off.

It doesn’t look more real to me than the hominins depicted in 2001…
It moves just like it could be a human in a costume, and the footage is so blurry the actual quality of said costume isn’t even really visible.

And still to this day, it still hasn't been debunked. Which speaks volumes to its credibilty.

You ignored my question on what it would take for you to accept the footage as "debunked", so your claim about its resulting credibility is unsubstantiated.
Depending on our standards (e.g. if we require the author to actually confess to it being fake) we cannot debunk the infamous nessie photograph either, that doesn’t speak volumes about its credibility though. See creature’s excellent post on the matter: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/47069/thread

Even though we may not be able to "debunk" every single piece of footage or photograph directly, we can be pretty sure they are fakes regardless. Why? Because the probability of footage being faked is almost always there to begin with, and on top of that goes the overwhelming evidence against what it is depicting actually existing (no eDNA evidence, no scientifically confirmed observations or high-quality photos, no physical evidence, no place or way for a sustainable population of a large, air-breathing animal existing without our knowledge, extremely low likelihood of a 66 million year ghost lineage in plesiosaur evolution, real plesiosaurs couldn’t actually bend their necks like that…).

And why do the hair samples have to be peer-reviewed?

The question is, why shouldn’t they have to be peer-reviewed? Why would someone do a detailed scientific analysis, e.g. of bigfoot DNA, even get positive results, and then not want to publish that? Wouldn’t that be suspicious?

Meldrum and Chilcutt are very respected and credible leading experts in this field. Their conclusions are more than enough. Melba Ketchum has also tested Bigfoot hair and concluded they no doubt exist.

Again, why didn’t they publish these results? Or did they?

If, as you claim, these analyses are credible, then why wouldn’t they want to present the evidence and the methods to the scientific community and let other people test them?

And like I said before, most scientists don't want to risk ridicule. For some reason, they treat Bigfoot like its believing in Santa Clause or something. Its ridiculous.

Well, you are the one who basically just said that Bigfoot was "impossible to find", and thereby pretty much unfalsifiable. Much like Santa, or God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Can you debunk any of those based on your standards for debunking something?

I’m pretty sure if someone came up with solid evidence for bigfoot’s existence, the scientific community would be more than happy to accept it. As you surely know, new species are discovered and described all the time, and nobody seems to take issue with that. The same could be done with bigfoot, people doing so should merely play by the rules of good science, that means describe and publish their evidence properly.
But you can hardly blame people for not believing in something if nobody presented them with any good reason to do so. If as you claim "respected" and "credible" scientists have such evidence, then why don’t they publish it, like other scientists? In fact, if you are alledging bias in the scientific community against the existence of bigfoot, then how come those people are still "respected", "credible" scientists at all?

[creature386]

Nov 6, 2019 19:36:12 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

I already explained. I'm not gonna go round in circles with you guys now. The top hollywood costume designers at that time said they couldn't replicate the Patterson footage.

Facts speak louder than words. If there was a Hollywood filmmaker today who said it's impossible to create a 3D movie, all existing 3D movies would not evaporate.
Likewise, the clip theropod has shown demonstrates ape man costumes looking even more believable than the Patterson footage (due to the higher quality) from roughly the same time (1967 vs 1968).

Nov 6, 2019 19:36:12 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

It looked too real to pull off. And still to this day, it still hasn't been debunked. Which speaks volumes to its credibilty.

All it proves is that no-one cared enough for a detailed rebuttal:

The Patterson–Gimlin film has seen relatively little interest from mainstream scientists. […] As anthropologist David Daegling writes, "[t]he skeptics have not felt compelled to offer much of a detailed argument against the film; the burden of proof, rightly enough, should lie with the advocates."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film#Analysis

Nov 6, 2019 19:36:12 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

And why do the hair samples have to be peer-reviewed? Meldrum and Chilcutt are very respected and credible leading experts in this field. Their conclusions are more than enough. Melba Ketchum has also tested Bigfoot hair and concluded they no doubt exist.

Because science is not based on authority. If their results are not available for review, we basically have to take their word from it. The discoveries that appear to shatter the scientific status quo, but don't do so on closer investigation outnumber those that actually do. If you want examples, just ask paleo-fans on this site about fragmentary bone remains that at first indicated a giant animal no-one has ever heard about, but didn't do so upon closer investigation.
Besides, you also have "credible experts" for any position ridiculous enough to give them enough attention, like geocentrism, germ denial, young Earth creationism, Holocaust denial or the inane ideas of Immanuel Velikovsky.

Nov 6, 2019 19:36:12 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

And like I said before, most scientists don't want to risk ridicule. For some reason, they treat Bigfoot like its believing in Santa Clause or something. Its ridiculous.

Most scientists initially refused to believe in heliocentrism, the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity, too. But they still looked into it and over the decades, these theories have become the new scientific consensus. Bigfoots credibility in scientific circles has not improved one iota on the other hand.

EDIT: Theropod was faster.

[mountainlord]

Infinity Blade

Jimmy Chilcutts evidence has been disputed by what experts?? Show me? Were those people who disputed his evidence also top leading experts in the same field as him? Do they have the same expertise as Chilcutt?? Go on show me?...

theropod

So now you know more than the top Hollywood costume designers of that time? How the hell was Patterson - A BROKE MAN, with barely any money, gonna find any technology to pull off such a realistic hoax that can't even be debunked over 50 years later? Go on explain?....

Who do you expect me to listen to, you or the actual experts?...NO ONE, and I repeat no one has ever been able to debunk that Patterson footage, fact. No one to this day. That speaks volumes. According to you, if it could be replicated even at that time, then how comes in 2019, it still hasn't been debunked once and for all??

What your saying makes no logical sense.

And the "nessie photograph" was just a black and white photo. Unlike the Patterson film, which was a LIVE, in colour, moving creature on video. Big difference. The fact is, that if a broke man can pull off a fake video like that, then experts even in the year 2000, would have been able to conclusively debunk that footage. But to this day, more than 50 years later, no one has ever been able to, period. And thats exactly why many people believe thats a real sasquatch.

Also, Meldrum has had his hair samples peer-reviewed. Go watch some documentaries. Melba Ketchum has also documented and tested authentic Bigfoot hair too.

And Meldrum is part of the scientific community and many scientists are aware of his work and respect him. He even collaborated with wildlife biologist Dr George Schaller in the book "Sasquatch; Legend meets science"....and in that book they present plenty of scientific evidence that confirms the existence of Bigfoot.

And lastly, don't twist my words. I never once said that Bigfoot was "impossible" to find. I was talking about their bones! Read my previous post to smedz again.

creature386

All it proves is that no-one cared enough for a detailed rebuttal

No, all it proved was that no one can debunk that footage, period. Many people have tried and all of them have failed. Several people even lied that they were the Patterson creature, and when asked for the proof, they couldn't provide a shred of evidence to back up their bullshit. They were all found out to be blatant liars.

Facts speak louder than words. If there was a Hollywood filmmaker today who said it's impossible to create a 3D movie, all existing 3D movies would not evaporate. Likewise, the clip theropod has shown demonstrates ape man costumes looking even more believable than the Patterson footage (due to the higher quality) from roughly the same time (1967 vs 1968).

Again, Patterson was a BROKE MAN, who had no money. How the hell was he gonna get a hold of a "suit" that realistic??

Also, the footage theropod posted clearly shows humans in ape suits. The Patterson creature was MUCH LARGER, far more robust and had ape-like limb proportions!

The ape-like anatomy of the Patterson Bigfoot makes it impossible to be a human. In theropods footage, you can easily tell thats humans in an apes costume.

[Infinity Blade]

Jimmy Chilcutts evidence has been disputed by what experts?? Show me? Were those people who disputed his evidence also top leading experts in the same field as him? Do they have the same expertise as Chilcutt?? Go on show me?...

Did you read the webpage I hyperlinked in my post for you? Here it is, his occupation, and what he did that calls into question the authenticity of so-called Bigfoot footprints.

Recently, a Seattle man, Matt Crowley, obtained a copy of the Onion Mountain cast.7 Crowley, a former pharmacist who now makes a living as an artist, conceived a series of experiments to try and duplicate the circumstances of the Onion Mountain cast. Working with painstaking detail, he tried to recreate the same hot, dry conditions of the original site. The result has been a series of test casts, which (as a product of the casting process) display virtually identical dermal-ridge-type surface characteristics (see figure 2). Crowley presented his findings at three Bigfoot conferences in 2005. The response from the Bigfoot community, so far, has been surprisingly positive.

The Onion Mountain cast displays three distinct patterns. The most obvious of the three is a series of what do look like dermal ridges running along the outside of the track. These are the ridges Chilcutt is referring to when he identifies for the television camera his “flow pattern.” Crowley’s experiments clearly show that Chilcutt’s “pattern” is an artifact of the casting process, appearing in all of the tests. The other two details of the Onion Mountain print are an apparent skin crease across the center of the print (Crowley calls it a curved furrow) and more lines similar to human dermal ridges, but not characteristic of the “flow pattern.” Amazingly we can see these other dermal patterns, including an almost identical curved furrow in Crowley’s experimental casts-again, all artifacts of the process. So compelling are the Crowley experiments that Daniel Perez, who chronicles the search for Sasquatch in his Bigfoot Times newsletter, named Crowley his “Bigfooter of the Year.”

And if you're not satisfied with this and you really want to hear the opinion of supposed experts (a bit more on that below) regarding this, here's what Jeff Meldrum (who in your own words is one of the "very respected and credible leading experts in this field") had to say about this.

Even Jeff Meldrum, the chief academic spokesmen for Sasquatch, has grudgingly conceded this piece of evidence for Bigfoot is lost. According to the December 2005 Bigfoot Times, Meldrum is quoted as saying, “However, I caution others not to extend the results of [Crowley’s] experiments beyond the conditions he has investigated, which apply to the Onion Mountain track site.” This is unnecessary, as Crowley has always maintained the Onion Mountain cast was a specific case and the results were the product of this particular set of conditions. But Meldrum is wrong. The Crowley experiments have a larger message: that seemingly impressive “evidence” for the Sasquatch monster can turn out to be no more than one man fooling himself. This is a lesson that is not confined to this specific track.

Also, top leading experts in what field? Bigfoot research? There's not really a whole lot of weight to being a "top leading expert" in something that's not even a recognized, legitimate field of science and research, my dude.

[theropod]

mountainlord : I think you need to revisit your understanding of the word "fact"

Refer to this: ncse.ngo/definitions-fact-theory-and-law-scientific-work

How the hell was Patterson - A BROKE MAN, with barely any money, gonna find any technology to pull off such a realistic hoax that can't even be debunked over 50 years later? Go on explain?....

Maybe he made the costume himself. Maybe a friend helped him out. Maybe he wasn’t so broke after all. Maybe he borrowed or stole a costume. Maybe someone else decided to run around in an ape costume, and he merely witnessed and filmed it. I don’t understand why I need to explain that to you…

...NO ONE, and I repeat no one has ever been able to debunk that Patterson footage, fact. No one to this day. That speaks volumes. According to you, if it could be replicated even at that time, then how comes in 2019, it still hasn't been debunked once and for all??

You still haven’t responded to my question what you think constitutes "debunking" of this footage, but from this passage, I take it you accept replication as "debunking"? In that case, I’m sure someone since then has run around in an ape costume and looked moderately convincing doing it…

So now you know more than the top Hollywood costume designers of that time?

If "top hollywood costume designers of that time" claimed that it was technically impossible to fake that footage at that time, then heck yes. I already demonstrated costume designers back then were perfectly capable of producing sufficiently realistic ape costumes.

Also, Meldrum has had his hair samples peer-reviewed.

I’m still waiting for you to post that paper…

And Meldrum is part of the scientific community and many scientists are aware of his work and respect him. He even collaborated with wildlife biologist Dr George Schaller in the book "Sasquatch; Legend meets science"....and in that book they present plenty of scientific evidence that confirms the existence of Bigfoot.

Great. So if there is good, accepted evidence for Bigfoot that the scientific community accepts, then why did you write this: 

And like I said before, most scientists don't want to risk ridicule. For some reason, they treat Bigfoot like its believing in Santa Clause or something. Its ridiculous.

And lastly, don't twist my words. I never once said that Bigfoot was "impossible" to find.

Well, seems you need to revisit your own words as well. An example of a fact is that you did write that:

Nov 6, 2019 19:43:56 GMT 5 mountainlord said:

There's people that have lived in the woods their whole life and have never come across a single Black bear skeleton, and there's thousands of bears all over the place. The Rainforest soil also quickly dissolves the bones of an animal, which makes it almost impossible to find.

Now, add that factor to the most rare and elusive mammal in North America, and it makes it impossible to find, period.