Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

It does seem a little hypocritical.

NobleSavage wrote:It does seem a little hypocritical.

What exactly do you find hypocritical?

CMcMillan wrote:Ok so Evolution:

We having the discussion of evolution and Mutations:

Why do skeptics jump on people cases when people say bigfoot must be able to see infra-red.
Per evolution and Mutations it is possible since other animals can see this spectrum that Bigfoot evolved to see in the same spectrum over time.
So to say its crazy is saying that evolution is crazy.
It is possible they can since we supposedly come from the same single cell organism so we would all have the trait to adapt to this over time.

To see in infra-red does sort of sound syfi-ish. But to see infra-red is not so far fetched. As I stated before, the NVG's that we used back when i was in the army could see infra-red light which our own eyes could not. The Infra-red chem-lights (Glow sticks) would light up the entire area even better than the normal ones could. (Normal ones are too bright for NVG's) But you would not know without NVG's on.

They do not have to have lazier-eyes with heat vision lol. Only be able to see the infra-red light. That I do find possible. The "Self Luminous" red eye-shine that some report seeing, could be a by-product of how their eyes reflect infra-red back into a normal range?

Blondie1,

No comments about the blatant baiting and goading? I can't say I'm surprised

Woodwose wrote:Blondie1,

No comments about the blatant baiting and goading? I can't say I'm surprised

That comment in it's self, for one. I even overlooked a kill-shot on you to simply change the subject back to the original and you are going back to this?

You admitted that this new taxonomy was a possible fad and yet you decide to be a stickler on it and correct people who use the original term? If it is a possible fad, why argue for it? Hell don't bother answering, I am no longer responding to anything on this senseless topic.

I've tried to get the thread back on topic, but now we've now got two of the usual suspects raking the muck and badgering me with comments that have been addressed and put to be bed over and over again. Am I supposed to reject science and admit I'm wrong if they simply repeat themselves enough times?

I came to this forum to have rational discussions about the genuinely compelling possibility that there might be an unknown bipedal primate living in the US and other parts of the world. At first this forum felt like a refreshing platform for this kind of discussion and early contributions set it apart from the diverse alternatives out there. Since then everything has gone to hell and you can't be a voice of reason without being harangued or ostracised for offering a rational viewpoint that is critical of suspect evidence or irrational opinions. At the moment this forum makes the McCarthy trials look downright civilised.

I'm sorry but despite Shawn's good intentions this forum has become another failure.

Tzieth,

You are the one going over the same BS. You admitted on another thread that you got the taxonomy wrong and now you are repeating yourself for nor rhyme or reason (other than silly point scoring). And here you are once again raising another issue that has been explained to you and put to bed. Did you read the post where I explained my 'fad' comment, did you take it on board? What about all the other posts where I explained how you are mistaken - posts that were subsequently ignored and dismissed without any counter argument?

Saying you are right over and over and over again, does not make it so. You might feel vindicated in sticking to your guns without ever dealing with criticism, but outside observers will judge the merit of your arguments according to the quality of your arguments. So far you have offered non other than to say you are right and the usual tilting at windmills which reveals your willful ignorance and disregard for critical free thinking.

Woodwose wrote:I've tried to get the thread back on topic, but now we've now got two of the usual suspects raking the muck and badgering me with comments that have been addressed and put to be bed over and over again. Am I supposed to reject science and admit I'm wrong if they simply repeat themselves enough times?

I came to this forum to have rational discussions about the genuinely compelling possibility that there might be an unknown bipedal primate living in the US and other parts of the world. At first this forum felt like a refreshing platform for this kind of discussion and early contributions set it apart from the diverse alternatives out there. Since then everything has gone to hell and you can't be a voice of reason without being harangued or ostracised for offering a rational viewpoint that is critical of suspect evidence or irrational opinions. At the moment this forum makes the McCarthy trials look downright civilised.

I'm sorry but despite Shawn's good intentions this forum has become another failure.

Tzieth,

You are the one going over the same BS. You admitted on another thread that you got the taxonomy wrong and now you are repeating yourself for nor rhyme or reason (other than silly point scoring). And here you are once again raising another issue that has been explained to you and put to bed. Did you read the post where I explained my 'fad' comment, did you take it on board? What about all the other posts where I explained how you are mistaken - posts that were subsequently ignored and dismissed without any counter argument?

Saying you are right over and over and over again, does not make it so. You might feel vindicated in sticking to your guns without ever dealing with criticism, but outside observers will judge the merit of your arguments according to the quality of your arguments. So far you have offered non other than to say you are right and the usual tilting at windmills which reveals your willful ignorance and disregard for critical free thinking.

Oh god.. Last time..

I never said I got it wrong. I said that You got it right and I was unaware of this changing of stuff... I also said that I was still right as well. (You have me on the Taxonomy.) meant that I could not debate your stance... However you can't debate mine either, so there is no right or wrong here. Both are accepted.

The only one not keeping this topic on track right now is you.

If you want to debate vocabulary then open a topic on it on the non-bigfoot area. But both of us are pissing people off by repeatedly taking this thread off it's intended topic.

Tzieth wrote:I never said I got it wrong. I said that You got it right

Read that back to yourself.

Both are accepted.

Both are still used and I explained why.

But both of us are pissing people off by repeatedly taking this thread off it's intended topic.

Rubbish. You are the one who keeps taking this thread off topic because you don't like the fact that someone has the temerity to call you on your ignorance. You haven't presented a single counter argument on this thread, but rather justifications for your continued ignorance. Stating that you are right is no substitute for presenting a coherent argument that stands up to scrutiny and no amount of inane cheering from the sidelines or backslapping is a substitute for rational debate.

I can be mistaken and I am happy to hold my hands up when I get something wrong. It's a pity that you don't share the same sentiment.

Put your money where your mouth is and make sure your next post is on-topic. I won't be responding if it isn't.

PS - I didn't raise the issue of terminology in order to start an argument. I raised it in order to prevent misinterpretation and initiate what should have been an interesting discussion regarding Patty and comparative anatomy. You should take that on board and consider what light that sheds on your outbursts.

Pot's calling the kettle black

So what Evidence has science Dismissed?

I mean to be more specific. That every Scientist Dismiss's what evidence does every scientist whole heartedly dismiss?

Tzieth wrote:Pot's calling the kettle black

Are you going to give me a Wet Willy or a Chinese Burn?

So what bearing does our knowledge of Hominidae limb ration and locomotion have on the legitimacy of the PGF?

CMcMillan wrote:So what Evidence has science Dismissed?

I mean to be more specific. That every Scientist Dismiss's what evidence does every scientist whole heartedly dismiss?

I don't understand the question. Scientists do not dismiss evidence.

read the title of the thread!
So you tell me what evidence?

CMcMillan wrote:read the title of the thread!
So you tell me what evidence?

As was implied in my previous post, the title of the thread makes no sense as science does not dismiss evidence.

So what bearing does our knowledge of Hominidae limb ration and locomotion have on the legitimacy of the PGF?

Woodwose wrote:

Tzieth wrote:Pot's calling the kettle black

Are you going to give me a Wet Willy or a Chinese Burn?

So what bearing does our knowledge of Hominidae limb ration and locomotion have on the legitimacy of the PGF?

The same as i stated before. If the.. I will say Homo so we do not get back into that again. Homo skeletons are correct in the reconstruction, they have the exact same limb ratio. We know the arm and leg length based on complete arms and legs. The feet are also on par with theirs (I know we do not have complete feet, but we have the fossilized footprints)

Of all of them, Homo-Sapiens and Sapiens-sapiens are the odd-ball. Further more, Patty is walking as various footprints of Bigfoot and of bipedal Hominids suggest. Inlined with one foot in-front of the other. I do not think Patterson was that smart or for that matter if it was even known during his time, to be able to hoax in that much detail.

Everyone points out that he was a con-man... I have yet to see any con's he pulled or attempted to pull. Everyone says he was broke and had motive to con. However, if he was broke, how was he able to purchase a suit like that? Or pay the "Real man in the suit" to keep his mouth shut?

Bob H. was not the first to claim it was him. However he is the first to do it after Roger died and could not defend himself.

As for the footage. I have yet to see a specialist of the same field call it fake. What I mean is, you have Biologists saying it is fake because of a reason that is not in their field. "It looks like a suit to me." Where you have guys who make the pro argument doing it off of things they know. Bio-mechanics etc..

As for the other argument that people have made here. "Why doesn't it's butt move." I was at a loss on that one. But I did notice something about that Gorilla that walks upright that was floating around on youtube a while back. It's butt was not moving either when it was walking up right. It's the same for that chimp that they thought was a human hybrid (Oliver). In both cases the shoulders are dipping and swaying as they walked, but the hips were perfectly still. This might also have something to do wit the ratio.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:read the title of the thread!
So you tell me what evidence?

As was implied in my previous post, the title of the thread makes no sense as science does not dismiss evidence.

OK maybe a better title would be..."Why isn't science looking at the evidence?"

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:read the title of the thread!
So you tell me what evidence?

As was implied in my previous post, the title of the thread makes no sense as science does not dismiss evidence.

So what bearing does our knowledge of Hominidae limb ration and locomotion have on the legitimacy of the PGF?

I am not going to debate the PGF film.
It doesn't have the quality we need to really examine it.
To much drama around both sides of the film.
I will wait to see what Bill has to put out.

Tzieth wrote:Homo skeletons are correct in the reconstruction, they have the exact same limb ratio.

That isn't the case at all. There is a lot of variance between Homo species. For example, if we took footage of a modern human walking down the street the limb ratio and gait would differ significantly from homo neanderthalensis or homo heidelbergensis.

There will be some overlap due to convergence at the extreme limits for each species (and possible interbreeding in the case of neanderthalensis), but on the whole it should be possible to see a clear distinction.

If we then look at the whole Hominidae family (as suggested by CMcMillan) comparative morphology becomes even more problematic and in either case we cannot use this data to determine if Patty is a man in a suit or a genuine cryptid.

As far as footprints are concerned there is every possibility that Patterson's casts could have been real and that the footage is fake. Creating the footage might have been a well intentioned if misguided attempt to add weight to a genuine encounter. The footage is too ambiguous to determine if this is the case.

I certainly don't dismiss the footage. I merely set it aside and file it as 'unknown'.

I also agree that many of the allegations of fakery do not stand up to scrutiny.

Overall I currently think that the evidence for and against Patty cancel each other out. There are biometrics placing her outside human norms and biometrics that contradict that view. There are details that are consistent with it being a person in a suit and others that suggest a living animal. There are even features that could be interpreted either way. Is the herniated leg muscle bulge indicative of a living creature, or is it simply an imperfection in a constume. Are the changes in fur density on the shoulders something we would only expect to see on a living animal, or are they tell tale signs of a cowel?

DPinkerton wrote:OK maybe a better title would be..."Why isn't science looking at the evidence?"

I agree.

It does however make for a limited topic. The short answer is funding and credibility.

As much as I applaud science the rigours of the scientific method and emphasis on falsifiability makes it difficult for new ideas to get the attention they deserve.

There is a lot of stigma associated with BF since it is often lumped in with the paranormal and many researches will steer clear of the subject out a fear of committing career suicide. If that isn't bad enough, when it comes to funding the ugly truth is that outside academia, scientific research doesn't get funding if it has no real world applications.

Expeditions cataloging new species in remote regions are backed because of the hope that there will be new medicines or engineering applications that can be learnt from undiscovered fauna and flora. Whilst the discovery of previously unknown animals makes the headlines, these discoveries are only a fortunate byproduct of commercially motivated projects. Science has to dance with the devil so to speak.

Woodwose wrote:Blondie1,

No comments about the blatant baiting and goading? I can't say I'm surprised

That is blatant baiting and goading. Thank you so much. You are a troll!