Board index › Off Topic Discussion › Random Discussion

The Role of the Skeptic

Page 5 of 8 [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,270

25 Oct 2020, 10:50 am

naturalplastic wrote:
If you capture a live bigfoot, and put it in the monkey house next to the gorillas, it would be accepted as fact that bigfoots exists.

Yes. Do that, and it doesn't matter what the experts say, people can bypass them and take a look for themselves. It would be pretty much as close to proof as it's possible to get. A more extreme skeptic might want to get into the cage and personally examine the creature to try and make sure it's not a brilliantlly-designed robot or a bloke in a costume.

It's true that it's always possible to concoct a somewhat plausible argument that something is or isn't so. The way I see it, nobody knows anything for certain. Scientists don't always tell the truth and get everything absolutely right. No individual can be quite sure of their own immunity from delusion. I think all we can do is to try to assess the balance of probabilities, and luckily in many cases the result tends to be pretty close to 100%, and then we can run with that assumption. Sometimes new data comes in and we reconsider and change our assumptions. But no good scientist would work in any other way. Good science doesn't make absolute declarations about anything, it tests things as rigorously as humanly possible and then issues a tentative conclusion when it's logical to do so. Then others are invited to knock holes in the methodology and the logic, and if they can't, the original assertion remains the best we've got for the time being.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

25 Oct 2020, 2:49 pm

It’s rare that people talk about multiple Bigfoots; they usually “see” solitary ones.

Somehow, the Loch Ness Monster has never reproduced over hundreds of years....has anybody seen more than one Loch Ness Monster at a time?



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Oct 2020, 3:01 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
It’s rare that people talk about multiple Bigfoots; they usually “see” solitary ones.

Somehow, the Loch Ness Monster has never reproduced over hundreds of years....has anybody seen more than one Loch Ness Monster at a time?


Very good point ... by now , Nessy , should have so many family members. , there should , herds. Or. Pods of Nessys. Floating about


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 Oct 2020, 4:46 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
It’s rare that people talk about multiple Bigfoots; they usually “see” solitary ones.

Somehow, the Loch Ness Monster has never reproduced over hundreds of years....has anybody seen more than one Loch Ness Monster at a time?


I hope that you are aware that even believers dont believe that "bigfoot" is just one individual running around the woods of all of North America (like Moth Man, or Santa Claus).

Actually folks often do see multiple bigfoots. Mother Squatches with the little baby ones, or groups of them. The cameraman who shot the famous 1967 Patterson film said he saw other creatures lurking over his shoulder in the woods while he was trying to keep the camera on the one captured on film. USUALLY yes, its just one. But often its more than one.

But yes... in my own humble opinion there HAS to be either... zero bigfoots, or there has to be a breeding population of them scattered across the wilds of the US and Canada in perhaps the thousands (they are very few per square mile, but they have a vast supposed range so it would add up if they really existed). That is -they either dont exist at all, or they have a breeding population comparable to that other large wild mammals. But somehow they evade detection better than do most comparable sized mammals including their most likely competitors: bears.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Oct 2020, 6:45 pm

The stumbling block with breeding populations of bigfoots is the lack of evidence of their presence. Apart from sightings there isn't solid evidence for hair, scat, footprints or shelter. The evidence collected hasn't swayed science (yet) but the most interesting things are the heat signatures given off on radar captured on camera suggesting there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Oct 2020, 7:19 pm

cyberdad wrote:
The stumbling block with breeding populations of bigfoots is the lack of evidence of their presence. Apart from sightings there isn't solid evidence for hair, scat, footprints or shelter. The evidence collected hasn't swayed science (yet) but the most interesting things are the heat signatures given off on radar captured on camera suggesting there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.


Smart idea using heat signatures to uncover frauds of bigfoot


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 Oct 2020, 7:45 pm

cyberdad wrote:
The stumbling block with breeding populations of bigfoots is the lack of evidence of their presence. Apart from sightings there isn't solid evidence for hair, scat, footprints or shelter. The evidence collected hasn't swayed science (yet) but the most interesting things are the heat signatures given off on radar captured on camera suggesting there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.

Exactly. Troops of gorillas or chimps dont go undetected. There in lies the rub. These creatures would have to compete with bears for the same ecological niche and same food sources.

They never even find scat. Much less hair, or dead bodies. Just foot prints, and the occasional hand print.

There was a curious toe nail they found once in Arizona. They do find mysterious nests (that resemble nests made by gorillas in Africa ) in the woods of places like Washington state, and other structures like thick tree trunks leaning against each other like teepee poles in the deep woods of the Rockies that cant readily be explained as made by humans, nor by beavers, nor any other known animal. Basically its a vast quantity of very soft evidence, but a vanishingly small amount of hard evidence.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Oct 2020, 8:06 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The stumbling block with breeding populations of bigfoots is the lack of evidence of their presence. Apart from sightings there isn't solid evidence for hair, scat, footprints or shelter. The evidence collected hasn't swayed science (yet) but the most interesting things are the heat signatures given off on radar captured on camera suggesting there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.

Exactly. Troops of gorillas or chimps dont go undetected. There in lies the rub. These creatures would have to compete with bears for the same ecological niche and same food sources.

They never even find scat. Much less hair, or dead bodies. Just foot prints, and the occasional hand print.

There was a curious toe nail they found once in Arizona. They do find mysterious nests (that resemble nests made by gorillas in Africa ) in the woods of places like Washington state, and other structures like thick tree trunks leaning against each other like teepee poles in the deep woods of the Rockies that cant readily be explained as made by humans, nor by beavers, nor any other known animal. Basically its a vast quantity of very soft evidence, but a vanishingly small amount of hard evidence.

The proof is in de. Pooh. :oops:


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Oct 2020, 8:24 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Exactly. Troops of gorillas or chimps dont go undetected. There in lies the rub. These creatures would have to compete with bears for the same ecological niche and same food sources.

They never even find scat. Much less hair, or dead bodies. Just foot prints, and the occasional hand print.

There was a curious toe nail they found once in Arizona. They do find mysterious nests (that resemble nests made by gorillas in Africa ) in the woods of places like Washington state, and other structures like thick tree trunks leaning against each other like teepee poles in the deep woods of the Rockies that cant readily be explained as made by humans, nor by beavers, nor any other known animal. Basically its a vast quantity of very soft evidence, but a vanishingly small amount of hard evidence.


The Bigfoot "believers" posit that past interaction with humans has selectively breed populations of bigfoot who are smarter and more cunning/careful. They use underground caves for shelter and have evolved nocturnal rather than diurnal activity when feeding (interestingly almost all sightings are at nightitme). This then provides scope for small breeding populations to go undetected.

Interestingly Australians who hunt the Tasmanian tiger (which is extinct) also claim the same thing that the tigers have evolved to be more evasive and stealthy which why they evade detection.



old_comedywriter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Somewhere west of where you are

25 Oct 2020, 8:28 pm

cyberdad wrote:
...there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.

Bigfoot Furries...some people and their weird fetishes...


_________________
It ain't easy being me, but someone's gotta do it.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Oct 2020, 8:31 pm

Jakki wrote:
Smart idea using heat signatures to uncover frauds of bigfoot


The heat signature works because a human dressed in civilian clothes will show differences in heat between parts of their body that is exposed and clothed

Image

Whereas animals don't wear clothes so the bigfoot (like this one taken in Mexico) are evenly giving off heat.

Image



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Oct 2020, 8:34 pm

old_comedywriter wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
...there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.

Bigfoot Furries...some people and their weird fetishes...


Wondering in the dark without flashlights in the middle of the forest in a monkey suite does seem odd but for skeptics that's what explains all the photos

Image



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

25 Oct 2020, 8:39 pm

Jakki wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The stumbling block with breeding populations of bigfoots is the lack of evidence of their presence. Apart from sightings there isn't solid evidence for hair, scat, footprints or shelter. The evidence collected hasn't swayed science (yet) but the most interesting things are the heat signatures given off on radar captured on camera suggesting there's either men dressed up in monkey suites wondering the forests of North America or there is some type of primate/humanoid creature.

Exactly. Troops of gorillas or chimps dont go undetected. There in lies the rub. These creatures would have to compete with bears for the same ecological niche and same food sources.

They never even find scat. Much less hair, or dead bodies. Just foot prints, and the occasional hand print.

There was a curious toe nail they found once in Arizona. They do find mysterious nests (that resemble nests made by gorillas in Africa ) in the woods of places like Washington state, and other structures like thick tree trunks leaning against each other like teepee poles in the deep woods of the Rockies that cant readily be explained as made by humans, nor by beavers, nor any other known animal. Basically its a vast quantity of very soft evidence, but a vanishingly small amount of hard evidence.

The proof is in de. Pooh. :oops:


Put some jugs of fruit juice on your back porch of that backwoods house of yours. But spike it with it Ex Lax. When they steal the jugs you will get a brown trail of evidence just waiting for DNA analysis.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Oct 2020, 8:42 pm

Lolololzzz


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

25 Oct 2020, 8:42 pm

Apparently they particularly like peanut butter and snickers bars



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

25 Oct 2020, 8:58 pm

:D


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are