|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
13th March 2015, 04:58 PM | #561 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
Oh no you can't make this stuff up....well somebody can!
http://thebigfootshow.com/2014/07/10/tree-trouble/ |
13th March 2015, 05:07 PM | #562 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
13th March 2015, 05:42 PM | #563 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
Clenching at a rock wouldn't require much dexterity. It'd be a pretty simple task for any ape assuming they have a working hand. For the relict theory, I was suggesting they might be something along the lines of the Australopithecus, a genus of apes which may have had considerable intelligence. With 3 million years of potential evolution, it's possible they could have grown in size to meet whatever demand their environment or social construct would call for.
|
13th March 2015, 06:02 PM | #564 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
Throwing accurately does require dexterity but perhaps you are referring to digital dexterity. So, a bigfoot is smarter than a chimpanzee but has hands more like a gorilla without opposable thumbs?
Quote:
|
13th March 2015, 06:02 PM | #565 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
We've had a discussion about those trees before.
|
__________________
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? |
|
13th March 2015, 06:57 PM | #566 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
|
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
13th March 2015, 07:09 PM | #567 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
13th March 2015, 07:16 PM | #568 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
I would love that, Rock!
It's actually a bunch of middle-aged white dudes in khakis and blue Oxford shirts, a schmattering of mature science ladies who all seem to look like Carole King, and the rest are their hippie grad students. |
13th March 2015, 07:17 PM | #569 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
|
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
13th March 2015, 07:52 PM | #570 |
Sorcerer Supreme
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 7,905
|
|
__________________
"I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -- Jimi Hendrix |
|
13th March 2015, 08:07 PM | #571 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I agree that quadrupedal locomotion would be inefficient, but it would be easier for a more ape-like bipedal hominid, than for a human given the difference in limb proportions and strength. We see bipedal locomotion in quadrupedal apes on rare occasions, but it isn't their preferred way of moving.
|
14th March 2015, 02:48 AM | #572 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
14th March 2015, 04:36 AM | #573 |
Village Idiot.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
|
For the sake of argument, let's assume that the NAWAC folks are telling the truth. (Yes yes I know, but humor me; the following will be more fun if you play along.)
Not long ago I read a story in the local newspaper about an amateur collector up here in New Hampshire. He set out to find a mammoth bone, and after several years of searching by golly he found one, laying in the middle of a woodland stream. Let's consider this a moment. Unlike NAWAC, he did not have a group of expert teammates to provide assistance. He wasn't surrounded by live mammoths to help focus his search. He didn't see mammoths during the day, or hear their cries at night. There were no trail of broken trees for him to follow. He didn't live in a cabin where mammoths routinely paid him nocturnal visits. Further, he had no tools other than his eyes, feet, and motivation. No cameras watching 24/7 for a passing mammoth, nor gun to shoot a souvenir off one. And yet when this lone amateur walked out of the woods, he held in his hand infinitely more proof of his quarry's existence than NAWAC -- and all the combined efforts of Bigfooters everywhere -- have ever found. At this point we can now drop our original pretense and ask the inevitable question: How can this possibly be? For skeptics, the answer is so obvious as to be inescapable: Because Bigfoot does not exist, nor has any remotely similar primate ever existed in North America. For any rational, informed, objective, and honest person there simply is no other plausible explanation that doesn't strain credulity several exits past the breaking point. Nothing else can explain why one person searching more or less at random can find proof of an animal extinct for over 10,000 years, while hundreds (if not thousands) of supposedly expert searchers can find no trace -- present or past -- of extant populations of living, breathing animals. This is not denialism; it's simply acknowledging self-evident reality. Thus taking a "middle" position on the question of Bigfoot is as untenable as doing so for whether or not to teach Intelligent Design in public schools, or whether or not the Earth is flat. The perplexing thing is that nothing I've just written is at all unfamiliar to Ms. Hill. Indeed, in the past she seemed to have agreed that the idea of Bigfoot's existence is so ridiculous it didn't even warrant serious attention and response from skeptics. Nor could Ms. Hill have been surprised by the reaction from the skeptical community, many of whom (like me) may now look upon her work as a formerly valued resource, now potentially compromised. Thus I suspect that it was not for her usual constituency Ms. Hill published her thoughts about NAWAC's report. Beyond that, I will not speculate as to Ms. Hill's motives. Lone amateur 1, all the Bigfooters ever 0. It requires no math acumen to comprehend what those numbers truly mean. |
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J |
|
14th March 2015, 05:43 AM | #574 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Well-stated, Stella.
I've wondered if Sharon Hill has been a denialist/scofftic during the past several years that she was building her reputation, and perhaps this is the first time she's ever seriously considered potential evidence of Bigfoot, i.e., what we do here every day. I don't suspect that James Randi knows much about Bigfoot. The Skeptical Rogues on the SGU don't seem to, either. |
14th March 2015, 06:21 AM | #575 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
Maybe you could start a thread on the reimagining of all known biological species past and present as well as all fossil records to support an imaginary monkey man. Your arguements are a fantastic look into how ones mind works to support the unsupportable
Are you suggesting thoughts such as these are what Sharon Hill and The NAWACKYs think about? |
14th March 2015, 06:54 AM | #576 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
I'm trying to say that most of the commonly reported characteristics of Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Wood apes can be supported by science. And although it's very unlikely, it's not a scientific impossibility. I know it may come across as special-pleading to some, but even if there's a very slight chance that these things exist, the possibility is worth exploring in my opinion. Of course, not everyone would agree.
|
14th March 2015, 07:37 AM | #577 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
Anecdotal reports mean nothing and that includes my own.
In fact the very nature of the reports actually work against biggie because there's nothing on record to support anything like Bigfoot. Sure anythings possible with enough imagination, conjecture and fabrication that's best explored on BFF (Bigfoot Fantasy w/Friends) you remember that fourm because it appears you've forgotten your not there! To your final point "if there's a very slight chance these things exsit" good grief man you get this award for today...... So your suggesting that because there might be a snow balls chance in hell Biggie exist its ok to contort the scientific process, logic and reason to accommodate something that has not one shred of evidence to support its existence. Here's a group of creatures that were rumored to exist in some pretty remote places not the backyards of suburbia or third generation NP forest. Guess what they got reported, someone went and looked and they were confirmed. But the monkey man of NA just can't be found because (insert special power dejour here) As I suggested maybe another thread for musings of those types or just let go OS it's ok to want bigfoot to be real but realize there's nothing to support it. I'll be in Shenadoah NP next week and I'll look for proof of all creatures real and imagined |
14th March 2015, 08:35 AM | #578 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
It's an imaginary animal, so it can have whatever properties you imagine it to have. Special pleading on steroids. In the sane world, first you prove that something exists, and then you observe the behavior of that something. Bigfoot logic is ass backwards and always has been. |
14th March 2015, 09:23 AM | #579 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,655
|
No, I've talked about this before as have others. Real animals leave tracks and hair and partially chewed food and dung behind. You can find identifiable signs like these even if you never see the actual animal. When a survey of forest elephants was done, it wasn't necessary to see every animal but signs of forest elephants were clearly recorded. It makes no rational sense to claim that a large animal exists that doesn't leave any traces behind. Invoking the word "science" gains you nothing when you ignore the very scientific protocols that you claim to support.
|
14th March 2015, 09:26 AM | #580 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
__________________
Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore, So do our minutes hasten to their end . . . WS |
|
14th March 2015, 11:32 AM | #581 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 752
|
|
14th March 2015, 11:33 AM | #582 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
No, Bigfoot is not impossible; we know that creatures that would fit the usual description of Squatch have existed in the past (Gigantopithecus, for example). However, such a creature, if it presently existed, would leave unmistakable evidence of its presence. No such ironclad evidence exists, even after decades of searching; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude (even without invoking the food-supply and habitat-encroachment problems) that Squatch is mythical.
|
14th March 2015, 12:24 PM | #583 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
Apparently you and Sharon Hill both do not have a problem with people out in the woods carrying heavy firepower shooting at mythical creatures. Doesnt sound dangerous or foolish at all right? It's "interesting" and "might shed light" on what they are experiencing. *gags* I think it's (if its even true! who knows, story tellers tell stories!) highly irresponsible, and possibly criminally negligent in some instances. |
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY "I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY |
|
14th March 2015, 12:34 PM | #584 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 7,301
|
|
__________________
Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' |
|
14th March 2015, 01:02 PM | #585 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
14th March 2015, 01:09 PM | #586 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
14th March 2015, 01:22 PM | #587 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 752
|
|
14th March 2015, 01:27 PM | #588 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
|
14th March 2015, 01:28 PM | #589 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
|
8. They can't be seen by non-believers
|
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke." |
|
14th March 2015, 02:16 PM | #590 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
|
14th March 2015, 02:18 PM | #591 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
|
14th March 2015, 02:32 PM | #592 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
^^^^
Opps...my bad! |
14th March 2015, 02:46 PM | #593 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 752
|
9. They can't bear the porcupine that eats their skeletons.
|
14th March 2015, 02:57 PM | #594 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,532
|
OS,
You got some homework to do....but I'll give you the cliff notes! The ability to grasp and throw objects accurately is uniquely human. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2014...ho-throws-best Here's some info that may be helpful... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti.../#!po=0.824176 And some more..... http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=128830458 Sharon if your still reading this thread and I'm sure you are What OS is doing is what you accuse us of doing....what I'm doing is what anyone with a Internet connection and desire to acquire facts before shooting their mouth off could do...you should try it sometime! |
14th March 2015, 10:22 PM | #595 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 752
|
I don't think she will be interested. She seems to enjoy being in the "excluded middle".
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle..._extraordinary
Quote:
|
15th March 2015, 12:33 AM | #596 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
15th March 2015, 12:35 AM | #597 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
15th March 2015, 03:03 AM | #598 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 262
|
Hey! That's an interesting article - thanks for that...
However, I think you are missing the point - the "excluded middle" is not about having "no lies" nor "no truth". It's more about appreciating the subjectivity of the human experience (ie it is possible for any of us to have an intense anomalous experience which are subjectively real despite not being objectively so) and it is most certainly not "boring"... Would anyone be interested in exploring Hill's article (and it's possible ramifications) in another thread? The BLAARG hypothesis generally regards Bigfoot to be the product of 90% lies and 10% misidentification (false belief). 90% of Bigfoot claims are from people who know Bigfoot doesn't exist but just make-believe otherwise? Is that not a dismissal of the role of true believers in bigfootery? If 90% of Bigfooters are knowingly "in on it" then that's one hellova conspiracy theory... There is no evidence that Bigfoot exists but there is plenty of evidence that some people believe otherwise. Belief. It only takes and requires a small amount of fakery to foster a false belief. Belief and the ostension of belief (the "experience") do the rest. I reckon 10% "lies" (objectively false), 90% "truth" (subjectively real) would be more accurate... |
15th March 2015, 04:51 AM | #599 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
15th March 2015, 05:27 AM | #600 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 5,147
|
Indeed, a closer look at comments from those of us who support the BLAARG hypothesis will reveal that we're all over the map in terms the proportion of accounts we attribute to it. The NAWACkies are probably a combination of hoaxer/landowner, true believers, and BLAARGers.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|