Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Adirondack Wildlife
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-05-2012, 01:44 PM   #41
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
What this all comes down to is that, logically speaking, you can't prove a negative.

So long as cable networks continue to hype the Bigfoot subject for their own ratings benefit, there will always be people who take these shows at face value -- as "information," rather than as "entertainment" as their producers clearly intend them to be.

While the existence of a Bigfoot could be positively proven with the discovery of an actual specimen, the absence of such evidence will signify nothing to the believers. An object that never existed doesn't leave an artifact of its nothingness, and since there is no such thing as a Bigfoot, there will never be evidence either for or against its existence.

Which means that so long as there are people who feel the real world is enriched by the mysterious and inexplicable, Bigfoot will remain an elusive creature that remains perpetually just around the next tree, always lurking out of sight.

Last edited by Bill I.; 12-05-2012 at 05:28 PM..
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:33 PM   #42
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
A quick "find and replace" will prepare this nicely for the next cougar thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill I. View Post
What this all comes down to is that, logically speaking, you can't prove a negative.

So long as cable networks continue to hype the Bigfoot subject for their own ratings benefit, there will always be people who take these shows at face value -- as "information," rather than as "entertainment" as their producers clearly intend them to be.

While the existence of a Bigfoot could be positively proven with the discovery of an actual specimen, the absence of such evidence will signify nothing to the believers. An object that never existed doesn't leave an artifact of its nothingness, and since there is no such thing as a Bigfoot, there will never be evidence either for or against its existence.

Which means that so long as there are people who feel the real world is enriched by the mysterious and inexplicable, Bigfoot will remain an elusive creature that remains perpetually just around the next tree, always lurking out of sight.
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:33 PM   #43
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
I agree that the Bigfoot shows are purely entertainment.

Artifacts, as you said, are not easy to leave. Let me give you an example. Chimpanzees have existed in Africa for ~5-7 million years. Accordingly to Jane Goodall, ~1,000,000 chimps lived in Africa up to 1900 and now about 200,000 exist. A chimp has a lifespan of about 40 years.

When you do the math, approximately 125 billion chimps have lived in Africa. It wasn't until the Fall of 2004 that the first fossilized remains of a chimp were discovered by Dr. Nina Jablonkski and she only found three teeth! That's not much left from 125 billion anything.

So, no artifacts isn't a surprise to me. Any artifacts would be, given the likely small population of Bigfoot, should they exist. I believe they do.
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 07:47 PM   #44
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiawiwb View Post
So, no artifacts isn't a surprise to me. Any artifacts would be, given the likely small population of Bigfoot, should they exist. I believe they do.
The key word in your statement is "believe," which is a completely different mental function than "knowing." People believe there is a Bigfoot, so they keep looking. Evidence is irrelevant, since the facts are going to be constantly bent anyway to conform to the beliefs.

Children believe there is a Santa Claus, until they know differently.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 11:52 PM   #45
timmedee
Member
 
timmedee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill I. View Post
Children believe there is a Santa Claus, until they know differently.
What are you saying?
timmedee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:23 AM   #46
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
Shame on me for my careless use of language and thank you for bringing it up. Strike "believe" and insert "conclude".

I totally disagree with your allegation that evidence is irrelevant. Evidence is everything and the preponderance of evidence with respect to Bigfoot leads me to conclude they do exist. Your analysis may lead you somewhere else and that's ok too.

For example, to me the most compelling aspect of the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) is the photogrammetrically-calculated ASH ratio of the creature in the film. The creature, named Patty, is either a man in a suit or it's a real sasquatch. At ~1.27/1.30:1.00, it is simply outside the boundary of any human proportion I know of.

Nevertheless, until such time as a body is brought to the table, the naysayers will never accept the totality of evidence even if peer-reviewed DNA results produce the findings outlined in my original link.

I pray that day never comes.
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 07:28 AM   #47
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
[QUOTE=Bill I.;194010]What this all comes down to is that, logically speaking, you can't prove a negative.

QUOTE]

And yet you yourself make a statement of non-existence based upon nothing.
In fact there is a mountain of evidence but you chose to ignore it because in your words "there is no such thing as a Bigfoot" therefore any proof is worthless.
So in your mind you relegate Bigfoot to the catagory of myths and legends alongside of Mermaids,Unicorns and sightings of Elvis even though there is a huge difference in physical evidence between them.
cityboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 07:55 AM   #48
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Trust me, it's not just not in my mind that Bigfoot is relegated to the category of myth.

The whole Bigfoot thing is entertainment, not science. There are people out there making money off this. They realize that there are enough people out there wanting to believe in this, so they capitalize on it. People post blogs pretending to be news reports or scientific articles so that the credulous can find them and fuel their beliefs. Today it's Bigfoot. Twenty years ago it was the JFK assassination conspiracy theory.

Hey, look. It's a free country and you're entitled to believe what you will. And that same freedom allows me to occasionally have some fun with the whole Bigfoot idea. But life is too short to argue about this. In you're view of the world it's more fun to believe there is a giant man-like ape living in the wilds of North America always just beyond the limits of human detection. Great, go with it. I realize that nothing I or anyone else can possibly say will shake you from your beliefs. That was the whole point of my statement.

Last edited by Bill I.; 12-06-2012 at 08:13 AM..
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:00 AM   #49
Neil
Admin
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,091
Before a war breaks out I think it would be interesting and instructive to do a thought experiment. Something along the lines of the ecology and life cycle of Bigfoot. Given the conditions currently existing in the lower 48, how would Bigfoot thrive and survive, what would his diet be? What sort of "facts and figures" would we toss around regarding breeding population sizes, fecundity, stature, anatomy, habitat, predation? Would he be vegetarian, omnivore, strict carnivore? What sorts of diseases would afflict him? What about cranial capacity and intellectual ability? Would he be capable of speech? How would he survive the winter? Why don't we have better documentation of his existence? How did he evolve? And so on.

If this generates interest then we can start a new thread.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 09:51 AM   #50
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
I'm a firm believer that the co-existance of Neanderthals or even an undiscovered seperate species and modern homo-sapians are the source of the bigfoot mythos.

The issue I have is that all of the species homo-sapian, neanderthal, cro-magnon and even ancestors of man such as austalopithiecus (which I believe is the species responsible for Bigfoot myth) were very communal animals based on archeological and anthropological research.

The lone creature or just mating pair doesn't fit with how these types of animals would live. It does sound to me like a mythical creature, that may be based on discovery of bones or the interaction of our ancestors with remnant communities, that has lasted with us for generations and exists across the planet.

There may have been communities of "big foot" when native american's arrived from Asia, the Pacific and Europe but that first interaction was perhaps lethal in terms of competition and more drastically exposure to diseases.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:25 AM   #51
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Given the conditions currently existing in the lower 48, how would Bigfoot thrive and survive, what would his diet be? What sort of "facts and figures" would we toss around regarding breeding population sizes, fecundity, stature, anatomy, habitat, predation? Would he be vegetarian, omnivore, strict carnivore? What sorts of diseases would afflict him? What about cranial capacity and intellectual ability? Would he be capable of speech? How would he survive the winter? Why don't we have better documentation of his existence? How did he evolve? And so on.
Due to population density here it would be very difficult for ANYTHING to survive long without detection in the lower 48. Assuming it was indeed possible it would have to be a feat accomplished by many individuals so that the population could continue to reproduce. A breeding population would have to be in the dozens or hundreds to prevent inbreeding. When you take into consideration thier body size and that all of this hiding and avoidance would require some degree of higher thought they would have to be omnivore at the very least if not carnivore. Typical primate diseases would be the most coomon afflictions I would imagine. Intelligence level I predict to be approxamately that of the average 4 year old human. The reason we have no better evidence is the same reason we have no better evidence of the existance of Leprachauns, Pegasus, Unicorns, or Elves. They are pretend animals.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:04 PM   #52
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
Neil's suggestion is a good one and I will address each aspect in my next email. This is prologue to that.

A few years ago, we all made fun of poor Neanderthal. We said he was short in stature but very muscular, grunted a lot and was very, very dumb. That's why he's gone forever. Couldn't figure out how to survive. A company even made many commercials spoofing him.

Now we know that all of us, except those with the African genome, have Neaderthal in our genome. We're part Neaderthal. Neaderthal is us.

Who would have said that three years ago and not been laughed at? Pretty amazing given the vast amount of time, money, energy and research that has gone into hominid genetics worldwide.

With nothing more than a handful of rag-tag amateurs, self-funding their efforts, attempting to uncover the mystery to Bigfoot, is it any wonder we've not gotten scientific results yet? It isn't to me.

Undoubtedly, many here will hasten to remind me that some people have more Neaderthal in their genome than others! )
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:30 PM   #53
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiawiwb View Post
With nothing more than a handful of rag-tag amateurs, self-funding their efforts, attempting to uncover the mystery to Bigfoot, is it any wonder we've not gotten scientific results yet? It isn't to me.
Now, now, now. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either give the people with credentials who have worked extensively on this thier credit or call them out and say you think thier degrees are rubbish or that thier methods are wrong.

Its not all amateurs working on this. The 'real' scientitsts have come up with bupkis too.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 12:49 PM   #54
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
What's a non-real scientist?
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:00 PM   #55
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiawiwb View Post
Neil's suggestion is a good one and I will address each aspect in my next email. This is prologue to that.

A few years ago, we all made fun of poor Neanderthal. We said he was short in stature but very muscular, grunted a lot and was very, very dumb. That's why he's gone forever. Couldn't figure out how to survive. A company even made many commercials spoofing him.

Now we know that all of us, except those with the African genome, have Neaderthal in our genome. We're part Neaderthal. Neaderthal is us.

Who would have said that three years ago and not been laughed at? Pretty amazing given the vast amount of time, money, energy and research that has gone into hominid genetics worldwide.

With nothing more than a handful of rag-tag amateurs, self-funding their efforts, attempting to uncover the mystery to Bigfoot, is it any wonder we've not gotten scientific results yet? It isn't to me.

Undoubtedly, many here will hasten to remind me that some people have more Neaderthal in their genome than others! )
I don't get how the intermingling of related sub-species 800,000 years ago proves that big foot exists.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 01:40 PM   #56
Commissionpoint
Tent Pitcher
 
Commissionpoint's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Diamond Point on Lake George, NY
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiawiwb View Post
What's a non-real scientist?
Alchemists, Astrologers, etc.
__________________
Are you in possession of all of your marbles?

WAIT a min-u-ete! I am the only one who gets to say "one more time"!
Commissionpoint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 02:21 PM   #57
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 575
Neil, I'd imagine that Bigfoot would eat whatever is available just like bears.
For the record I am skeptical of Bigfoot existing outside of the Pacific Northwest and Western Canada. I remember seeing a map highlighting sightings in North America. Every state had numerous sightings. However, once sightings post Patterson Film were eliminated the remainder were mostly concentrated in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. That's where you look not NY. If it was not for my inability to explain the Whitehall sightings by multiple police officers I would definitely say there is no Bigfoot in NY too.
cityboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 03:58 PM   #58
Neil
Admin
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiiawiwb View Post
Neanderthal is us.
Am I alone in finding this hyperbolic and oversimplifying?

I was unaware of the body of data regarding Bigfoot sightings. Got some good links?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Neil, I'd imagine that Bigfoot would eat whatever is available just like bears.
If we had a few teeth we might have a good idea. You could probably dress up a Bigfoot and let it scavenge in garbage cans in Manhattan and no one would even notice.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:09 PM   #59
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
I don't get how the intermingling of related sub-species 800,000 years ago proves that big foot exists.
It doesn't prove it nor was it intended too. What it illustrates is that three years ago science, and probably everyone here, would have laughed their collective heads off if I told you that you are part Neanderthal. That's a good one wiia. Yuk, yuk, yuk.

We had no clue that was the case even after all the time, money, energy and research spent and most of that was government spending. So, if something so fundamental as "Neaderthal is us" can escape the breadth and depth of the entire scientific community until a year or two ago, it begs the question, what else can escape it.

It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that something like 'Bigfoot' could especially because the scientific community has done very little and what has been done is the result of private funding.
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 05:15 PM   #60
wiiawiwb
Member
 
wiiawiwb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In the mountains
Posts: 637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commissionpoint View Post
Alchemists, Astrologers, etc.
Then Dr. Ketchum clearly meets your definition of a real scientist, and mine too.
wiiawiwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.