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

BurdenOfProof wrote:The pgf.

Jacobs photos.

Hovey photo.

Sound recordings

Footprints

Etc


Big footers look to science to solve it but when science dismisses their "best evidence" they hold on to it. I've heard people still say the Jacobs photos are of a sasquatch when scientists have clearly said its a bear.

No doubt have some loons chime in on here its a bigfoot.

Science works. Its the reason you own a computer and are able to talk to people all over the world on a forum like this.

A little bit of logic and reason goes a long way.

Here's the problem with your "logic and reason"...you ignore input as well.

There are experts that dismiss, accept and just plain scratch their heads at some of the examples you mentioned above.

Personally...

PGF--The real deal...body ratio demensions ( hip to knee, knee to ankle, shoulder to elbow and elbox to wrist are all outside the 95 percentile of human demensions, and while one person could exceed the dimensions on one of those ratios, they don't on more than one, and certainly not on every one. People that made "fur suits", movie costumers... during that time period claim they couldn't make a suit of that type with the dynmanics that were represented...The man that claims he was "Patty" couldn't recreate the walk, nor produce a credible suit, nor recreate the prints left at the site, yet "skeptics" such as yourself use his repeated, and inconsistent, claims as justification for it being a hoax. Also people use Patterson's background, or questionable credibility as proof of a hoax. They can't debunk the actual film so they attack the witness. Typical lawyer tactic.

Jacobs Photo's--I agree with the skeptics on this one. It is an odd picture to be sure but the feet on this creature are positively tiny and round...ie...a black bear...

Hovey Photo--definitely interesting, especially since you see skin underneath the hair (unlike a fur fake suit which would not show skin) and skin flaws such as scars and possible parasites. The problems I have with this picture is that the picture is a square on flat view of the back, what are the odds??? Also what did the creature do...crawl in front of the camera and then stand up and then squat back down? Where did it enter the field of the camera, where did it exit? Generally these things will take a picture as soon as they are triggered and I would have expected a blur or side view or maybe even an angled view of the back moving past the camera. The picture while compelling is still just a little questionable to me, and seems a little too staged.

Sound recordings.--There have been plenty of sound recordings analyzed by experts that could NOT be explained, that in fact do indicate simian/ape type vocalizations that do not line up with ANY animals in North America, just as there have been tons more that were thrown out as wolves, birds, coyotes, human, etc.

Footprints-Again there have been many proved to be hoaxes, but many that stump the best people in the business.

The real problem is that when an animal has not been identified by science (taxonomy) and placed into its slot in the tree of life then a true scientist when confronted with something that does not match that of "known" animals will have to answer "inconclusive"...which skeptics take to mean "proven false"...that's not the case. I don't know, means I don't know. I don't claim to KNOW they exist, but I look at the evidence with a open mind and a critical eye and I come to the conclusion that either this is the best orchestrated, and largest hoax in all of human history...or there is something out there we don't understand and we haven't identified....

It wouldn't be our first time....

I also admit that there are a lot of hopers out there that see Squatch behind every rock and probably would hallucinate seeing them in central park, but there are a LOT of very credible people who have seen something that defies their experience and caused them to report something that could cause ridicule, even wreck their careers. That's not a joke, that's not us blabbing on a blog, that's real life people who stood up to their fears of public humiliation to share their encounters knowing full well the treatment they would get.

You can criticize every little piece of "evidence" you want, but until you take in ALL the information and judge it fairly and don't just throw out the information that flies in the face of your operational theory of life, and if you take it as a body of information. You might just see a pattern emerge. That pattern isn't the pattern of some drunk hill billies trying to fool the city folk, its a pattern that truly points to a natural phenomenon that has not been identified....

as of yet or maybe never...

but remember...many things we except as fact are IN FACT still theories, not law....macro evolution, atomic structure in atoms, flow of electrons in current....

we just don't know it all yet...and we won't if we remain convinced that we already do...

g

What i find funny is people always saying Patty has been proven to be in normal human limits!
HELLO ITS A HOMINID!!

g

In response to the original question...

Science has dismissed many things because they do not contribute to proof. They are not concrete evidence that bigfoot exist.

Holding a foot print in your hand or the recording of an unidentified sound is NOT proof.

So why hold on to it?

Let's say that next year we do confirm the existence of bigfoot. We now have positive proof of what their feet look like, or how they vocalize. Would it not be valuable to have pre-existing material in which to study? Earlier vocal samples that were dismissed as "non-proof" now become valuable material for a researcher. Foot prints that were previously unconfirmed now become a record of bigfoot habitat areas.

To simply throw everything that is non-proof away would be a huge waste of potential and valuable scientific data.

CMcMillan wrote:What i find funny is people always saying Patty has been proven to be in normal human limits!
HELLO ITS A HOMINID!!

Presumably you mean hominin as gorillas belong to the family hominidae and they clearly don't fall within the limits of human physiology.

Either way it sounds very much like you are bending the evidence to fit a conclusion.

Without a body or DNA you can't make any assumptions about BF lineage or use those assumptions to determine if evidence is genuine or not.

No I mean Hominid Since we are listed as a Hominid





And as I said If Evolution claims we all came from the same source.
Then it is possible we have or had abilities that we do not have now.
I posted how through our own evolution what we have that we don't use anymore.
I am not fitting any conclusions
I am saying that WE DO NOT KNOW and to say something is Impossible or can't happen or Unlikely is false since as you all say WE Do not know anything about this creature.

Also since Evolution has claimed that we all came from the same base organism I can make claims and logical conclusion on the creature since We share similar things to other animals

StankApe wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:What i find funny is people always saying Patty has been proven to be in normal human limits!
HELLO ITS A HOMINID!!

Then which is it? You can't have supporters saying their NUMBER ONE bit of proof is that it's outside human limits, but then counter my statement by rationalizing "of course it's within human limits! It's a hominid!!"

It's either within human limits or it isn't. I have seen enough evidence stating it is to satisfy my assertion that it's a hoax (combined with all of the other various problems including the character of the filmmaker).

YMMV.... but get your story straight.


as an addendum: I have no idea if BH's nor any other people associated with the film are telling the truth. their stories have no bearing on my assertions it's a fake. I base them on the film itself.(the fact that Patterson was a con man doesn't help things either, but I didn't even know that stuff before I had changed my mind about Patty)

I have my story Straight.
I believe the bigfoot is closer to the Homo side than the actual ape or chimpanziee side of the tree.
So in my opinion I think it makes sense to have human traits as well as some more animal like traits.
but since we have no clue how or ancestors in the past actually behaved like.

g

Science doesn't have all the answers , as we know, some evidence is ridiculous, some is very compelling, some people are just looking for attention. some is so bad science won't even look at it, its a controversial subject so the evidence gathered on something that is not proven to exist ,will be controversial..

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:What i find funny is people always saying Patty has been proven to be in normal human limits!
HELLO ITS A HOMINID!!

Presumably you mean hominin as gorillas belong to the family hominidae and they clearly don't fall within the limits of human physiology.

Either way it sounds very much like you are bending the evidence to fit a conclusion.

Without a body or DNA you can't make any assumptions about BF lineage or use those assumptions to determine if evidence is genuine or not.

No she meant "Hominid" The genus that humans now solely belong to. Only Humans are even different from the other Hominids.

Humans are different from denisova, and heidelbergensis, and neandertal, but not by that much. Just a wee bit. we are all little branches from the same tree and may have interbred at times.

StankApe wrote:Humans are different from denisova, and heidelbergensis, and neandertal, but not by that much. Just a wee bit. we are all little branches from the same tree and may have interbred at times.

wee bit? lol Based off of those Darwinists trees yeah. Based off the actual skeletons, NO WAY lol. There is nothing small about the differences. None of them have our arched feet, none of them have our small eye-orbits, none of them have foreheads, none of them have a squared off rib-cage, none of them have our thin bones, and none of them have our long necks... wee bit eh?

Just my .02

PGF: Fake, people have come clean...

Hovey: Fake, why is the Bigfoot so short? That trail cam can't be any higher than a humans shoulders. Also how does a Bigfoot walk into a trail cam into that position for just one photo.

Jacobs: Real, that's no bear look at the head as it leans down, since when do bears have a skull like that?

Sounds: Real, not all of them of course but how can so many people get them at various places around the world and hear similar things

Prints: Real, See sounds

Tzieth & CMcMillan,

As I mentioned above gorillas and the rest of the great apes are hominids (hominidae) according to modern taxonomy. If you are only referring to hominid species more closely related to humans - homo neanderthalensis etc. - then you are talking about hominini.

Maybe you are confused by the fact that the term hominids used to only apply to the various Homo species?

Getting back on topic the physical characteristics vary a great deal amongst the species belonging to either of the above classifications. You would have to allow for such a wide variance in measurement parameters that it would be meaningless to state that Patty falls within the limits of hominids or hominini. It would be like stating that an ostrich falls within the same parameters as a T-Rex.

CMcMillan,

As to this notion that gaps in scientific knowledge means that anything is possible, I've already explained why that is bunk and why such a belief takes BF out of the realms of credible scientific enquiry and into the world of arbitrary folklore. Sure, BF could be made of chocolate and dance on moon beams, but how are you going to falsify that.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but let's at least keep it within the bounds of what is plausible and can be investigated empirically.

Again wood,


hominid — n 1.
any primate of the family Hominidae, which includes modern man ( Homo sapiens ) and the extinct precursors of man
1889, "family of mammals represented by man," from Mod.L. Hominidæ the biological family name, coined 1825 from L. homo (gen. hominis) "man." Hominoid "man-like" is from 1927.

Hominid is a general term used consistently by archaeologists and paleontologists for humans and any member of the species of animal we are most closely evolved from, including Homo neanderthalensis, Australopithicus, and Ardipithecus.

A fossil ape is identified as a human ancestor, in general, if it stood on two legs (was bipedal), and had relatively smaller teeth and bigger brains than the rest of the apes. As you might imagine, there is a great deal of debate over which creatures are our ancestors. Many paleontologists have begun using the term Hominin for this group, which is not exactly a synonym.

CMcMillan wrote:Hominid is a general term used consistently by archaeologists and paleontologists for humans and any member of the species of animal we are most closely evolved from, including Homo neanderthalensis, Australopithicus, and Ardipithecus.

That isn't the case anymore - as stated above. The term Hominin is now used instead when describing human related species after the split with the Panini branch.

You can ignore the change in taxonomy if you like, but my point still stands.

Suborder Hominoids (a primate superfamily)
...
Family Hominids <--- Again the Main Family is Hominid whole the Hominini is a sub family So I and TZ are still correct in our use of the term. The reason why I say Bigfoot is a Hominid because we don't know what Subfamily it may belong too. All we know it may end up its own subfamily. Since bigfoot is known to travel on all 4's and walk bipedal. So I believe MY usage of the term Hominid is correct. You may want to classify it even down more. But we don't have enough knowledge of the creature to say is it Tribe Hominini or tribe Gorillini it could be tribe Bigfoot for all we know.
...
Subfamily Homininae (see images)
Tribe Gorillini (African apes)
Tribe Hominini (human linages)
(1) Genus Ardipithecus
(2) Genus Australopithecus
(3) Genus Paranthropus
(4) Genus Kenyanthropus
(5) Genus Homo

My Opinion: I wouldn't be surprised it doesn't fall under its own Tribe. Since it has qualities described as both ape like/human/other animal

You are completely missing the point here.

Since you were discussing comparative physiology, it was important to determine if you were talking about the greater genus of hominids (which includes all the great apes) or the sub category humans belong to. That's why I asked for the clarification as to whether you meant hominids or hominins.

You reiterated that you meant hominids, but then gave the impression that you were only dealing with species after the panini split (i.e. hominin species). Obviously all hominins are also hominids (but not all hominids are hominins), so which lineage are you referring to? And more to the point what scientific grounds do you have for thinking BF belongs to that lineage?

If, as you state above, you are indeed talking about BF being a hominid then we come back to my original point (which you have yet to address) i.e. the large variance in physiology between species belonging to the genus.

Stating that Patty is within the norms for a hominid species becomes meaningless and gets us no closer to identifying what BF is or whether the PFG is genuine.

Shrugs~

I think i have given you my theory well enough
the creature we call bigfoot falls under the Family Hominids
But I also believe their are several creatures we call bigfoot that is why I classify it at the Family Level not the sub family.
Ie: Dogman- Has similar traits but seems to present itself differently than the PGF Bigfoot.
While the Sierra Killing Bigfoots seems to differ as well from the PGF bigfoot.
The we have the Skunk ape, Yeti, and many others.
You are the one who wants a quick classification.
I believe their is several variations at present.

I think someone should start to classify sightings more by description. Create a DB based off Description.
I don't think Bigfoot that we know, is in the Tribe Gorillini, but since we have accounts of it moving on all 4's like a gorilla i would not place it in Tribe Hominini even though Hominini is bipedal.
I would suspect it may fall under its own Tribe. But until the "scientists" do the research and then decide what they want to classify it under doesn't matter. so i will still classify it under Family Hominids

And what about comparative physiology in relation to Patty - that is after all the point I was addressing?

I still don't see where me saying it is Hominid is discrediting that it could be a human either since humans are in the Family Hominids.
I am do not have access to the original film, I do not have access to the Film location. Honestly no one really knows what angle the film was taken.
I personally feel the film show a creature not a suit.
Can some of the things be reproduced by Humans on the film sure but then Apes can mimic humans in ways and we can apes. in part that is why we are in the Family Hominids.

Like I said in another post.
The only true evidence some will want is at least 2 LIVE caged Male/Female bigfoots.
A body on a slab can be faxed. Unless people can see for themselves then it would not be real to them.

Its one thing to see animals on TV or on film.
But to go to a zoo or in the wild and see one up close it changes your view on the animal.

There are two issues here.

1. When claiming that Patty's physiology falls within normal limits for a hominid, you did it in such a way that suggested you believe this to have some bearing on the authenticity of the PGF.

2. There are no 'normal' or consistent limb ratios that apply to all hominids, so your statement makes no sense.

Woodwose wrote:Tzieth & CMcMillan,

As I mentioned above gorillas and the rest of the great apes are hominids (hominidae) according to modern taxonomy. If you are only referring to hominid species more closely related to humans - homo neanderthalensis etc. - then you are talking about hominini.

Maybe you are confused by the fact that the term hominids used to only apply to the various Homo species?

Getting back on topic the physical characteristics vary a great deal amongst the species belonging to either of the above classifications. You would have to allow for such a wide variance in measurement parameters that it would be meaningless to state that Patty falls within the limits of hominids or hominini. It would be like stating that an ostrich falls within the same parameters as a T-Rex.

CMcMillan,

As to this notion that gaps in scientific knowledge means that anything is possible, I've already explained why that is bunk and why such a belief takes BF out of the realms of credible scientific enquiry and into the world of arbitrary folklore. Sure, BF could be made of chocolate and dance on moon beams, but how are you going to falsify that.

There's nothing wrong with speculation, but let's at least keep it within the bounds of what is plausible and can be investigated empirically.

Gorillas are not Hominids. They fall under "Hominidae"

Definition of Hominid:
hom·i·nid   [hom-uh-nid] Show IPA
noun Anthropology .
any of the modern or extinct bipedal primates of the family Hominidae, including all species of the genera Homo and Australopithecus.