Slashdot Mirror
International Bigfoot Symposium
DaytonCIM writes "Yup, that's right the creature that took on Steve Austin (no, not the drunk and bloated pro wrastler, but the REAL Six Million Dollar Man) has legions who gather to debate and discuss his furriness. The International Bigfoot Symposium is going on right now.
SFGate also has a nice article on the grand meeting."
On The Sixe Million Dollar Man, wasn't Bigfoot played by a drunk and bloated wrastler?
Now you've made it way too confusing...
I, for one, welcome our new hyperpodiatric overlords!
Sam & Max Hit the Road references are not allowed.
I regularly report MSN spam to the Hotmail admins.
BigFoot is not real I don't care how many PhD's are duped into thinking it is. Obviously a Native American Ape would be a great find, but alas, it's not true...
Proof is in the pudding
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Well, the only one I ever read. My parents had it when I was a toddler, but I think it's as relevant today as it was in the 1960's.
On the Track of Unknown Animals by Bernard Heuvelmans.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Something's hairy in this world. And it's not Bigfoot.
.... a sexy, available, female nerd. We would all like it to exist. The fairy-tale aspect of it is too grand to not want, but sooner or later we come to terms with the truth.
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
I'm a size 13, does that qualify?
I bet the panel is made up of nba players...
The anti-salmon
What do you mean?
"Dances With Zira"
"Big Chief Banana Peel"
"Mojo Jojo Tonto"
"The Cheyenne-panzee"
"Last of the Monkeyhicans"
What is this claptrap doing in the science-category?
(karma to spare!)
Belief is the currency of delusion.
"Come to Winnipeg, we have thousands of these drunken savages walking the streets"
Do they fling poo too?
I always wanted a pet monkey, but everyone told me "No, they shit on the curtains. And they bite".
If only the /. editors had posted this before the weekend, I could've presented my research on big feet at the conference. :(
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Having recently purchased the Season 1 dvd set of "The Simpsons," I can't help but mention that some good material for the symposium to focus on would be Simpsons, season one, episode 7 (7G09)...
It's the episode where the simpsons get stuck in the woods and towards the end, Homer is mistaken for Bigfoot. Here's the SNPP link.
"This specimen is either a below-average human being or a brilliant beast.
"
- German Scientist discussing Homer
The anti-salmon
"What is this claptrap doing in the science-category?"
Bigfoot is just as scientific as the gorebrained "Man-made global warming" items that always get put into the Science category.
Andre the Giant has a posse and they are serving on the panel!
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This makes me think... I can see both way's points of view. I see that there is a LOT of evidence for Bigfoot' existence and that some of it might be hard to fake, but we must wonder: why haven't we got more than 1-2 pieces of video footage of the damn thing? We really should just thouroughly comb the woods where it is supposed to be. Even if we don't find it, we'll probably find some drug caches and convicted felons on the run... It's worth a try
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
...if there really is such a thing as Bigfoot? I'd rather have the only real-world furries be a mink, or a skunk, or a vixen. :)
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Haven't they heard the news? Some dude already confessed to faking Bigfoot tracks.
No, wait! That's what the government wants us to believe! Where's my tin-foil hat?!!
I would check records for:
People over ten feet tall AND
who pay more than $20,000/year for Brazilian waxes AND
who request penis REDUCTION surgery
[root@kgutwin
msdos.sys: fsav (linux) virus (17518-87)
Can we please have some articles about real science, and not hoaxes, lies, and scientific blunders?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Don't believe me, have a look at these pictures:
He's one showing that bigfoot is a big Linux user.
Here's one that clearly shows bigfoot and his wife marge.
Here's proof that the government thinks bigfoot is real
Do you need more than three independent sources?;-)
Just like crop circles, Bigfoot is a hoax.
Some guy made the fake video and used
"large" homemade feet.
Even when faced with the truth, I am amazed how some dumb idiots will continue to believe this clap trap.
Please retire both catagorys of Crop Circles and Bigfoot entries. Don't waste the bandwidth!
He is the best sailor who can steer within fewest points of the wind, and exact a motive power out of the greatest obsta
Bigfoot was bionic, right?
Funny how times change. Six million dollars today was 1/50th of the error margin in the Enron scandal. Imagine if such technology were available today -- Bill Gates could buy himself both bionic legs, and *both* bionic arms. He could attach it to a bionic torso, leaving only his head organic.
Then the Slashdot icon would be almost correct. Bill Gates, the Borg.
What a scary thought.
Talk about an unconquerable evil.
That's just about all there is to it.
I have a relative who is really into the Bigfoot scene. The Bigfoot believers are quite committed. They make a lot of mistakes because of that, though. What is really interesting to me is how so many of the same thought errors get made in radically different areas of human belief.
Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World is an interesting investigation of the entire phenomenon.
It is a terribly complex mental exercise to absorb all of the information in modern life and make intelligent decisions. The fact is that there are far too many claims to investigate for anybody to examine all of them with the necessary care. So we have to rely on the consensus of experts to make decisions. And the organizations necessary for consensus have the same flaws as all human hierarchal bodies.
Here are some of the various brands of kooky ideas that I have come across:
The AIDS Myth The medical analysis is surprisingly deep. A lot of qualified people have weighed in on this idea.
Carbohydrates not calories. They claim that our genes are still adapting to the modern high-carbohydrate diet, and that is why so many of us are so fat. (Enter Atkins.)
Democracy is not good government
Global Warming. Discussed on Slashdot a number of times
Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare Joe Sobran thinks that the Earl of Oxford wrote everything attributed to Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
Race and IQ Probably true, but kooky nonetheless.
Multiregional Evolution You can find most of Wolpoff's papers that are cited here somewhere online. I recommend "Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution" and "Modern Human Ancestry at the Peripheries: A Test of the Replacement Theory." Wolpoff is kooky because there are very few anthropoligists left who will side with the Multiregional theory over the Out of Africa theory. (Wolpoff technically supports an Out of Africa theory, but that is how everyone refers to the debate.)
And here is one that I will actually advocate: Bohmian Mechanics It is about as kooky as you can get for a physicist, but I am convinced that it beats QM on the merits.
...just some fat, naked, hair canadian like in that one episode of 'angry beavers'
You know what they say about primates with big feet...
I think the guys with the giant rubber feet got bored because no one-cared about Bigfoot hoaxes anymore, so they decided to put the fake feet to good usage stomping on corn. Hence, crop circles.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Bigfoot refers to the legendary beast, not the destructive big foot in Monty Python. Do not let the choice of category icon confuse you.
Our local newspaper published that there are no chipmunks in our county. I called a reporter out to see and photograph the chipmunks on our property in said county.
(Unfortunately, a couple of months after that, our 3 cats wiped out the entire population. We buried their little celebrity bodies with full honors. True story.)
My point is, it's virtually impossible to prove non-existence -- trivial to prove existence.
computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
Originally, Dr. Jane Goodall had committed to filling this slot, however, the museum was informed last week by Nona Gandelman, the VP/Director of Communications for the Jane Goodall Institute, that Dr. Goodall must meet with high-level officials from the Congo in September in an effort to preserve forest habitat in Africa. "As this is a major focus for the Jane Goodall Institute and because Dr. Goodall's US fall tour schedule is full, we have no option but to cancel her attendance at the symposium," Ms. Gandelman said.
Gee, and pass up a chance to meet with folks who believe in fake non-human primates ...
"My point is, it's virtually impossible to prove non-existence -- trivial to prove existence."
Depending on the circumstances, it is quite easy to prove non-existence. Whether or not something exists is merely a quality of something, just as color is.
There is hope and more hope...
There is no evidence, let alone proof, of either. Yet, the ideas persist. No amount of facts will get rid of the ideas utterly.
Shouting "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
The foot icon for this article needs to be bigger, and hairy-er..
Please direct all bug reports to
"welcome to the world of kryptozoology"
I saw in superboy that yellow kryptonite made a monkey turn giant at which point he tried to take over the world. Is this what you mean?
-Lucas
Yeah, no human would throw rocks like that.
(When's there's something strange, in your forest glade, Who ya gonna call?)
-Dave
You should have searched froogle.google.com.
"no, but there is evidence of a creature called an "ape", and that they did live in North America at one time"
No, there is no evidence of apes in North America. Unless you are being tricky and calling humans "apes", and then we are back to the "Native American Ape" thing.
"The burden of proof is on those who claim these things exist"
Wrong. The burden of proof is on those making any claim, including the "they do not exist" claim. Existence/nonexistance is just a quality of something, objectively like any other quality.
Interesting and a lot of good trolling material.
Kudos.
Local police are following up harassment complaints filed against a large dog in a suit and a rabbity thing with teeth like a SkillSaw noticed in the area. Conventioneers cited aggrivation in the form of winding pointless conversations punctuated with witty repartee, continuous offers of strange junk such as fish magnets or hands-in-jars, and occasional pummeling and/or gratuitous violence inflicted by the cute yet lethal white animal accompanying the well dressed canine. Reports of similar disturbances at the Biggest Ball of Twine in the World, the Mystery Vortex, and Frog Rock seem unrelated. When asked why Frog Rock looks nothing like a frog, officials had no comment.
I just couldn't resist. If you're confused, get enlightened.
"Mind if I drive?"
"Not if you don't mind me clawing at the dash and shrieking like a cheerleader."
"Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
"Local police are following up harassment complaints filed against a large dog in a suit and a rabbity thing with teeth like a SkillSaw noticed in the area."
Damn thing is back again! I knew that as soon as we booked Jimmy Carter as a keynote speaker, ol' Bunnicula be attracted to the event.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This is news for nerds, not news for nuts.
-No sig here, move along now.
"The girl that I am seeing these days is hot, sexy, available, female.
If you were more of a man, she would not be looking elsewhere, and would not be making herself available WHILE you were seeing her!
Harry and the Hendersons(1987) with John Lithgow, Melinda Dillon with a guest spot by Don Ameche. That Lithgow phone call to the cops ranks as one of the funniest scenes of '80s Hollywood (well before his 3rd Rock thing) - and "...nip it in the bud..." has new meaning for me now.
One reviewer here calls it the "Best Movie Ever Made" but I think that's a stretch...
Why have a symposium on something which has already been proven a fake?
With all this evidence of footprints and sightings, I'm simply surprised no one has made a good discovery of feces or urine samples which show the various characteristics of the so called 'sasquatch'. Footprints and photographs are easy to find and fake - poop is not so easy (does it contain any processed food? Human! Does it contain samples of its own hair? Study the hair! What kind and amount of bacteria are present. etc)
It would be better if one could find skeletal remains as well - It's unlikely that they are immortal - but if they are, then I could see that they might be intelligent enough to avoid discovery as a species, hiding all evidence (carcass remnants, droppings, etc). Of course they'd also be on the internet making sure good evidence is never discussed... Hmmmm....
-Adam
The only real explanation for why bigfoot hasn't been found is that he cut a deal with the UFO's.
Disprove that theory! Ha! You see the only way to deal with kooks is to make them disprove your even nuttier story.
And even more amazingly, some Carl Sagan fans are predisposed to the believe they are all wise and knowing.
I won't comment on all your statements here as I would no doubt get flamed, but it is nothing new to suggest democracy is a flawed governmental system. Would you call Plato's Republic "kooky" because it makes the very same claim? Ahh yes, I should trust Carl Sagan, and completely ignore one of the greatest minds to have lived in the last 2500 years. Irrespective of your personal views on the merits of democracy, many MANY brilliant people have noted democracy's flaws. They are in fact the same flaws we deal with today.
Anyway... be kooky!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
You are somewhat confused as to the nature of the "scientific method".
Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless.
There are no creatures that have been captured nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such. Despite all of the technology used in the searching for such.
All of the theories about bigfoot lack one critical element. The explanation of why none have been captured or their skeletons found.
Until one is captured or a skeleton found, those theories are all mental masturbation.
As is the "science" associated with it.
I would take a strong exception to 'Carbohydrates not calories'.
We burn the fat we get with a food quickly. We store the carbohydrates as a fat, and burn it afterwords. If we have very low fat high carbo diet, we burn carbo albeit at a lower rate than fat. If we get a mix of fat and carbo (like ice cream), we most certainly burn the fat part and store the carbo part That's the bottom line. I know it quite well, from my own experience. I have a very low methabolism rate, yet this is reduction of carbos in a diet, not fat, which makes me loose the weight quickly. You need fat for energy. The only time you need lots of carbos is when you expect the situation like marathon runner, so you neeed to store some extra calories.
My list of kooks was not meant to arbitrate between who was right and who was wrong. I meant to highlight some very unpopular ideas. I share the views that you have expressed on Plato and also on Sagan's fans.
(I want to point out, however, that my kook list is not from Sagan. I do not know of anything that he has written on Democracy or Plato.)
some thoughts:
there are MANY species of animals, who have been discovered, by cryptozoologists, just in the past 100 years, and their existence was suspected many years before the evidence was 'captured' or skeletal remains were found. Let me know if you'd like for me to cite examples.
as to your questions about "why none have been captured" is basically a question of funding. There's a reason why no one has done a full, high-resolution sonar scan of LochNess, too. it's because for an issue so wrought with hoaxes, no one in their right mind would fund such an expensive venture.
"nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such."
yeah ? by who ? WHO has done all this searching ?
the people at this conference, whose budgets are made in their spare time because their universities won't fund the searches ? the fact is, NO major search for evidence has EVER taken place, because of opinions like yours.
"Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless."
I'm sure that Historians, Anthropologists, and Paleontologists would love to hear your theories on that, as would the governments and universities who put money into all of those pursuits.
I too welcome our big GNOME footed overlords.;-)
(NB: No-one has ever seen the thing that generates the GNOME footprint either although we all know it exists.)
Asia is 1/2 German 1/2 Japanese, and she's THE hot geek chick.
But Asia is no longer a stripper and doesn't care for Macs.
-jpeg
A friend of mine wears size 14. Is that big enough? I think we can all say for certain that people with big feet do exist, so what's all the debate about?
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
and as to the "scientific method", its success is dependent on something called 'faith'.
Loch Ness? Another example of lots of belief and very little science. But with lots of theories about why each particular belief could be real. But no physical evidence.
So, you claim it is a matter of funding.
Yet the examples you've given where real creatures have been found have been accomplished with far less funding simply by using far better science.
As for your question of "WHO" has done the searching, please check the records pertaining to Tom Swift, millionaire, who financed several searches for unknown creatures that actually found those creatures. Yet when his funding for bigfoot did not produce anything. That is a single example for you to start with.
You final sentence shows your lack of knowledge of the scientific method. Historians are not bound by the scientific method. Anthropologists and paleontologists start with actual evidence.
Bigfoot fans don't restrict themselves to actual evidence. They start with a desire to have bigfoot be real and then build "theories" about why it could be so. But their "theories" are not testable in any way. They just end up with more "theories" explaining why their previous "theories" cannot be tested.
"LOL, I know that if I saw a bunch of loosers in camoflage kilts walking around looking..."
Those were dresses, not kilts. Looks like you have had a glimpse of the Michigan Transvestite Militia.
Show me one cryptozoologist success. Have they found the Pennsylvania Squonk? The actual Jersey Devil? (yes, the hockey team is named after one of these fake beasts?)
The ancient ape story provides no help, no evideence to support the Bigfoot hoax. It is like saying "yes, there are dragons running around in New Mexico" because there have been fossilized dinosaur skeletons found.
It's always nice to know where you're coming from.
I suppose nuclear power is "faith" to you?
Or lunar landings?
But the belief that large animals can exist in regions of the lower 48 states without leaving any physical evidence is "science" to you?
They are not only cute but they also indicate other things which are big and attractive! teehee lolol
come to my blog at http://www.boingboing.com Love ya!
"But the belief that large animals can exist in regions of the lower 48 states without leaving any physical evidence is "science" to you?"
Heh. There is plenty of evidence for Bigfoot. But you are supposed to ignore that it is all fake.
...is he running for Governor?
What I find hillarious isn't the people who refuse to even entertain the thought that these things exist (like myself... it DOESN'T, for christ's sake!), but the people who refuse to exist that it doesn't! It really makes me laugh how Smitty45 gets SO annoyed at everyone's skepticism. I'll bet he'll respond all hot and bothered (to dust off an old phrase) to this post, too!
Us Disbelievers just think it probably doesn't exist - those Believers... they REALLY believe!
Smitty45: do you by any chance also believe in UFO's? How about the Loch Ness monster? Did the CIA kill Kennedy? Just curious
No.
karma: Marianas Trench (mostly blub blub)
We should get the military involved. We could use some of the same technology they used to track down Osama bin... oh... nevermind.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Preliminary Results of the Search for Mid-Water Objects in Loch Ness using a Chirp Side-Scan Sonar 'Acoustic Net' Technique (2001)
It's funny that the wrestling connection was in the post. In the Six Million Dollar Man episode where he met Bigfoot, the creature part was played by the amazing, wonderful, great & all-around cool guy Andre the Giant.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
some cryptozoological successes:
...the list can go on.
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873
-Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s
-Chacoan peccary
-Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993
-Colossal squid, Antarctica, 2003
and you find more to add to the list, on google.
Almost all of the new species found in the past 100 years have started with anecdotal evidence, not just found by mistake.
Because there has been hoaxes in the past does not mean that any anecdotal evidence is a fake. Like I've said elsewhere, the discovery of "cold fusion" was made before, too, and turned out to be a hoax. Doesn't mean the search for it is folly.
The fact is, that the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that primate anthropologists have been going on. During the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge, as did hundreds of other animals that were not native to North America at the time.
People aren't at the symposium to swap fishing stories where they saw a monster. They are there to discuss, refute, and justify theories that support further investigation. The vast majority of those theories have basis in anthropological fact, not just soccer-mom backyard sightings.
Dated 12 September 2003, and 20 August 2003, respectively:
Spamelot(!), The Broadway Musical
Eric Idle's "The Greedy Bastard Tour"
"what I have been arguing is that logically following, hoaxes don't make a theory invalid, "
Hoaxes make the Bigfoot "theory" invalid, since the "theory" is built on the foundation of these hoaxes.
Anyone interested in Bigfoot, or Sasquatch should start at the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization.
They maintain a very well organized and qualified sightings database, many of which have been followed up on by BFRO staff.
I found the site because I was looking for some explanation of my own experience.
They address many common misconceptions and questions surrounding bigfoot such as:
"What is a bigfoot, or sasquatch?
Where is the physical evidence?
Why aren't there more photos?
How many are there?
Are they dangerous?"
I would suggest starting there because they very clearly state their purpose, are not sensational, and they are the only organization to employ scientific methodology in characterizing this undiscovered species.
Gigantopithecus is not indigenous to only North America, though most sightings have happened here.
If any of you know anything about criminology, or interviewing techniques or collecting forensic evidence, you will know why it is dangerous to contaminate potential witnesses with an abundance of bad information.
I also want to point out, taking a look at even the responses here, how arrogant a species Homosapiens is.
You people have NO CLUE. And honestly, they might be better off that way.
There are lots of theories to explain what we can detect, but it all starts with us being able to detect it. We have detected the interaction of sub-atomic particles.
Now you're going off about "GOD". That usually happens when people run out of facts. No, faith does not have a place in the scientific method. Reproducability is all that matters. The theories are tested and peer-reviewed and those tests are reproduced by others to verify them.
Hoaxes do not make a theory invalid.
But an untested or untestable theory is mental masturbation.
The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed.
All your "theories" about bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster are mental masturbation.
It is your faith that makes them seem like more to you.
I am not suppose to tell you this but Bigfoot is a spy and happens to be very good at spying and evading....."TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF ME, YOU STINKING APE!" C. Heston
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
"Gigantopithecus is not indigenous to only North America, though most sightings have happened here"
You tuchuk sleen. There have been no sightings! This is the problem:
"What is a bigfoot, or sasquatch?"
Some fake thing some guy made up, and many others have joined in the hoax.
"Where is the physical evidence?"
There is none.
"Why aren't there more photos?"
Because there aren't more kooks to make such fake photos (Bigfoot hoaxery is not a huge hobby)
"How many are there?"
Exactly.... 0. Unless you want to count my Uncle Ned with the hairy back who has been mistaken for Bigfoot by some drunken hunters.
"Are they dangerous?""
As dangerous as Smaug the Dragon.
"Tom Swift's budget for his "search" is a drop in the bucket when compared to REAL (even NSF-based) grantee's budgets over years, for say, looking for new species in the Antarctic."
m /b lfaq_fall_authority_index.htm
5 59 706848/002-2032256-6249603?v=glance
You are now comparing the budgets for setting up a base camp in the Antarctic to searching the forests in the Pacific Northwest? Of course there will be a difference. You can take a train to the forest, you have to charter a plane to the Antarctic.
You also skip over the species that Mr. Swift did manage to find, with his less than NSF budget.
He succeeded, with his budget, because the animals he was looking for actually existed and could be found.
No amount of money spent will ever find an animal that does not exist.
Yes, new species are found because of searches sparked by anecdotes.
Just as the search for bigfoot was sparked by anecdotes. Yet, despite the same amount of money spent, and the fact that the search can be performed in the Pacific Northwest, no bigfoot has been found.
"The people researching new species are scientists, indeed, but like I said before, the ones who involve themselves in pursuits that have had hoaxes in the media run the risk of losing credibility."
Why would losing credibility matter? Would not the fame from actually finding a bigfoot outweigh the risk of losing credibility?
Except that the scientists who are actually finding those new species are doing so by following the scientific method whereas the people looking for bigfoot are not.
That is why one group is generating successes starting from the same type of clue while the other just has theories and hoaxes.
"The theory that scientists propose strongly support the idea of a native North American ape is the real and accepted evidence of the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that the scientists, yes, _real_ scientists, have been going on."
Where is the evidence to support this "theory"? It is "propose[d] strongly". Is there anything more than someone's opinion?
No, there is nothing more than someone's opinion. Yet you claim that such people are "_real_ scientists".
That is known as an "appeal to authority" which is something called a "logical fallacy".
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticis
You continue that same fallacy in your claim "Most subatomic physicists and cosmologists will also agree that faith plays quite a large role in their respective fields."
You are also incorrect in "Galileo's Mistake".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1
That is a book on why religion, "GOD", should be as important as the scientific method. That has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis will be considered true forever. That is why theories are reproduced by peers. That is why theories evolve as our ability to measure increases.
Bigfoot does not exist and no amount of money spent will ever capture a creature that does not exist. Therefore, you will always be correct in stating that not enough money has been spent to capture one. When someone can spend more than an infinite amount of money on the search, a bigfoot will be captured.
Your proof of this is that other animals have been found by spending less than an infinite amount of money on the search for them.
Therefore, "GOD" is as valid as the scientific method as stated in "Galileo's Mistake".
I say that there is no bigfoot and because of that one will never be captured and that the "scientists" theorizing about how he got here and why no one can capture one are engaging in nothing more than mental masturbation.
I'm sure you'll bring up 'Gigantopithecus blacki' again, even though none of them have been captured in the Pacific Northwest. Like I said, mental masturbation.
We cannot detect something that does not interact with something else.
...is EXACTLY what those cryptozoologists are out to do."
We have detected interactions that do not fit the previous theory. These interactions seem to involve particles smaller than electrons, protons and neutrons.
These measurements can be verified by different people, at different locations.
There is no "faith" in that.
"But we still believe them to exist."
Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist.
"It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability."
What is there to "believe in" about reproducibility? You either can reproduce the experiment and get the same results or you cannot.
"You believe the sun comes up every day because it's been like that in the past, not because you've measured its speed and distance that morning. Welcome to any basic logic class."
That isn't "logic", that is "philosophy". "Logic" is part of philosophy. What you're degenerating into is "Solipsism". Again, a nice bit of mental masturbation.
""The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed."
Yet this has nothing to do with what the bigfoot people are out to do. You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans and ascribing attributes from one group to the other.
"I've been arguing with you, because you've been defending yourself with some interesting logic."
What defense? I've pointed out where the flaws in their theories and methodologies are. You've claimed that those flaws do not exist. You've resorted to "faith" and "appeals to authority" to support your claims that those holes do not exist.
But the flaws are still there.
"You, personally, have no proof that he exists."
If I had proof that he exists then why would I be saying that he does not exist?
"That doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't look for that proof, or that finding that proof is impossible, or that looking for the proof is foolish."
Looking for such proof in a structured fashion would be okay. Useless, since it does not exist, but still okay. I have been pointing out the holes in their theories and methodology.
"The past successes of cryptozoology have shown that it can pay off. Its success/failure rate, however, is admittedly not great."
And those past successes should be able to provide some criteria for future searches.
Since other animals have been found with less searching and less funding by following better practices, why has bigfoot been so difficult to find?
Construct a testable theory on why bigfoot has been so difficult to find. Then test that theory.
The same with sub-atomic particles. Once we could measure some of their interactions, theories were developed and new tests were performed to test those theories.
Given the existance of a large animal, how would we go about capturing one? Dead or alive? What methods of capture are available? How are other animals captured? How can these techniques be applied to capturing a bigfoot? If these techniques can not be applied, why not? What is unique about this creature? Why is this creature unique in these ways?
And that is how all those other animals were captured. By using experience with capturing other animals.
The simplist reason why none of this experience has worked now is that there is no bigfoot.
were some of the dumbest posts I've seen on Slashdot.
One moron wants to "thoroughly comb" the woods. This idiot has never been in ANY woods, let alone the Pacific Northwest, the Chiapas province, or anywhere else where the territory is seriously rugged. Nor does he have any experience, as the late Ivan Sanderson had, in animal collecting. Sanderson once pointed out that animal collectors do not "comb" an area for their collections, and that no one has yet used animal collecting technigues to get close to this creature.
One claims that if the creature existed, it would be at the top of the food chain. It is. That's why there aren't many of them. It is competing with humans for the last ten thousand years. We know nothing of how many there used to be on this continent. The Native Americans knew of these creatures and being fully human competed efficiently to reduce their numbers.
Also we know nothing of its reproductive habits, other than that it seems to operate in small family units, not so much groups as many other primates do. Reports indicate it's intelligence is less than human (by how much it is not clear) but far higher than any other animal. This is NOT an APE. It is a relative (how distant we don't know) of humanity.
There is also the question of how much this creature needs to eat to sustain an 800-lb primate. It is clearly omniverous, and while it is apparently capable of taking any game it can catch, we don't how easy it would be to sustain a large population of animals of this size and of this nature. Given the reduction in large game and fish by human territorial expansion, the creature may be reduced to browsing vegetation, and the occasional deer and some fish, which may have made it difficult to support a large population given human pressures on its environment. Absent a detailed scientific study of the subject, the objection about population is speculative.
The rest of the posts about whether "girl geeks" exist speaks for itself.
This is on a par with the "silly putty" article.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Ivan T. Sanderson cameout with one titled Abominable Snowmen which was at the most comprehensive discussion available. Heuvelman's is interesting because it really cover a range of very interesting possibilities in as yet undescribed large animals. Heuvelmans includes photographs of the skin of a spotted lion (African) and the photograph of the body a large, female ape from South America.
One of the more interesting points of Sanderson's study was a large number of footprint-cast illustrations. One of the ready hypotheses that could be framed after looking at those casts, is that if there are such critters, the "Yeti" and the "Sasquatch" are different genera. The Himalayan prints resemble a large primate's prints, but the N.A. prints are Hominid.
Its always kind of entertaining to watch the true believers and the true unbelievers hack at each other.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
"and the photograph of the body a large, female ape from South America"
There have never been any South American apes. Ever. Either this is an Old World ape, or it is that guy from "Trading Places" still stuck inside the gorilla suit.
"take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists."
Yes, they are not scientists of any time. Their rabid devotion to things that do not exist goes WAY beyond weekend hobbies into the realm of mental disorder.
"I get it: you don't believe that bigfoot exists."
There is no reason to: everything so far is the result of hoaxers. Only the easily-fooled and gullible believe it. Maybe I should go to the convention and make a mint selling these guys the Brooklyn Bridge.
I wiil toss in my two cents that the incident that started my own limited interest in this was a account blurted out by a woman in an anthropology class who was obviously still spooked by the experience.
As regards the "ape" issue though, "big foot," at least the North American variety, has to be a Hominid, if real. The descriptions are of a bipedal, upright animal and casts of footprints are consistent with both modern and fossil homind prints - if bigger.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
""You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans" ---take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists."
Again with the "appeal to authority". But you're wrong. The majority of the people listed are not scientists. Shall I list them for you? The is one biologist, one zoologist and one professor of anthropology. The rest are nobodies. Fans. Believers.
Mr. Dmitri Bayanov, Author, Hominology Investigator since 1964, State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia
Dr. John Bindernagel, Retired Wildlife Biologist
Mr. Jimmy Chilcutt, Crime Scene Investigator/Latent Fingerprint Examiner, Conroe Police Department, Conroe, Texas
Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach, Retired Invertebrate Zoologist and Head of Electron Microscopy Laboratory, Oregon Regional Primate Research Center
Mr. Doug Hajicek, President of Whitewolf Entertainment, natural history television documentaries
Mr. Alton Higgins, Assistant Professor, Mid-America Christian University, Oklahoma, BFRO physical evidence coordinator
Dr. D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Associate Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology, Idaho State University
Ms. Kathy Moskowitz, Forest Archaeologist, Stanislaus National Forest
Mr. Rick Noll, Curator, Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
Special participants:
Mr. Bob Gimlin, participant in 1967 expedition resulting in the Patterson-Gimlin film clip of a female Bigfoot in the Bluff Creek drainage in northern California
Mr. John Green, Author, Journalist, Bigfoot Investigator for 44 years
Mr. Al Hodgson, Resident of Willow Creek since the 1930s, acquainted with and assisted many Bigfoot investigators as well as personally conducting investigations since 1962
Mr. Jim McClarin, Bigfoot Investigator since 1963 and member of early expeditions from northern California to Alaska
Mr. Ed Schillinger, Engineer/surveyor, observed 1958 track finds in Bluff Creek drainage
Mr. Tom Steenburg, Canadian Sasquatch investigator since 1978 and author (Reserve Speaker)
"what theories ? what methodology have you been poking holes in ?"
To start with, your continued posting about how an ape might have migrated across the strait. That's your theory. Well, you keep claiming that it isn't and that it belongs to _real_ scientists, but with the frequency that you post it....
While that may be true, there is no physical evidence to support it. None. Nor does it seem that anyone is looking for any. If it is an ape, then why aren't people seeking to capture it using the same methods as capturing other apes? That is how I poke holes in your theories and methodologies.
"Take a hint from the poster called "0111 1110" above...at least he's making some arguments based on fact, and not trying to teach Science 101."
That is the problem. Without having "Science 101", you will not understand where the problems in your theories are. You will accept any fantasy as a legitimate "theory" because it fulfills a desire you have.
"There are no 'logical fallacies', here, in my argument, since I'm not relying on the testimony of other people."
Yes there are. Because you have repeatedly posted what "_real_ scientists" believed.
That is the "appeal to authority" and that is a logical fallacy.
There have been lots of people looking for bigfoot and lots of money spent on the search, but it hasn't yielded any results yet and you say that is because there hasn't been enough money spent on it.
That's cyclic logic. There will never be enough money spent on it until it produces a bigfoot but it will never produce a bigfoot because there aren't any.
I'm talking about the forests in the Pacific Northwest. They aren't hard to get to. Finding a large animal there should be one of the easiest cryptozoological finds ever. You can stay at one of the bed and breakfasts near by.
Less than 8 hours by car from Microsoft's main campus.
This is so similar to the typical roster at a MUFON convention: a bunch of nuts with dubiuos degrees peppered with a few former real scientists who abandoned reason for the wild-eyed romance of fantasy seeming made real.
I believe that there is at least a possibility of bigfoot existing, and unless your name happens to be God, I doubt you have the qualifications to disprove its existence. There is plenty of evidence: hair, scat, pictures, video, footprints, and other casts that show this is a mystery worthy of further scientific investigation. To disprove bigfoot's existence requires the simultaneous examination of every square foot of millions of acres of dense forest, so let me know when you can accomplish this. Otherwise save your absolute judgements for things you can know absolutely.
what sig?
A BBC team performed the most extensive scan of Loch Ness so far and have failed to find Nessie. ahh well, maybe we can have hope for Champ
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
Remains of a 10 to 12 foot tall primate have been discovered in Asia. Gigantopithecus supposedly lived up until 100,000 years ago. Maybe this is where the myth of bigfoot and the yeti came from?
If gigantopithecus was around up until 100,000 years, then both Homo erectus (2 mya - 60,000) and Gigantopithecus were contemporary to each other, in the same region. Anatomically modern humans would have been living toward the end of Gigantopithecus' reign, although probably not in the same region.
If Bigfoot realy existed, it (he?) will be not an Ape, but an humanoid.
What's going to happen to the creationsm belief? Such an humanoid will be a big argument if favor of evolution.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
"There is plenty of evidence: hair, scat, pictures, video, footprints, and other casts that show this is a mystery "
No, it only shows you have been fooled by faked photos, bear shit, and dudes with big wooden shoes stomping around to bamboozle idiots like you.
If not, then why do you keep dredging it up?
Also, why do you not believe it? Is it because there are holes in it?
But you said that there aren't holes in it.
If there aren't holes in it, then why don't you believe in bigfoot? The theories certainly support it, don't they?
You cannot have it both ways.
I do not believe in bigfoot because the theories offered in support of it have too many holes and fail to explain the basic questions.
Did you have trouble understanding that?
So, you never said there weren't holes in it?
Well, that certainly explains everything.
No physical evidence.
A theory with holes.
You claim that not enough money has been spent to find bigfoot.
Yet you don't believe bigfoot exists.
But you claim "_real_ scientists" do believe it.
Well, it's been real. Have fun with the other "scientists" at the bigfoot conventions.
Then it may be confused for a Lord of the Rings story.
~D
When I was a young boy growing up on the Oregon coast, I personally met and chatted with one of the two guys whose hoax could be credited with starting the whole Bigfoot scare. Their "Bigfoot tracks" were the first to make the papers, and were the subject of investigation by many "qualified" anthropologists, etc., who pronounced them genuine.
They later were implicated in the hoax and confessed. Apparently, it all happened just like you'd expect. They cut giant feet out of plywood, strapped them to their shoes, and went clomping around (in the snow? don't recall), then brought their friend to see the tracks they'd "found", as a gag. When the friend got the papers to come look at the tracks, they decided they might get in trouble if they confessed, so they hid the plywood feet and kept mum. They thought the anthropologists were hilarious.
Let me reiterate. They eventually confessed. Freely. In the newspaper. To this day, some folks still believe those tracks were real.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98779_bigfoot0 6.shtml
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
1. The relatives of the first bigfoot spotter have, after he died, admitted it was all a hoax. BIGFOOT=HOAX
2. Yeti investigators traced trail of yeti footprints to a cave where hair was found (of an unknown mammal yet upon analysis cleary a type of bear). YETI=LARGE ASIAN BEAR
3.Loch Ness was untrasounded completely. Not there.
LOCH NESS MONSTER=NOT NOW THERE (in past, who knows)
4. Crop circles perpatrators have confessed and demonstated perfectly their abilities.
CROP CIRCLES=HOAX
Suuuure. I'd like to see you call him that to his face!
Um. . ."probably true?"
Wow. Just, wow. Between this kind of "Bell Curve" crap and the growing prominance of the Holocaust Deniers it seems we really have regressed pretty badly in this country over the last 25 years.
Sad.
Yesterday my wife dragged me to an event at which we sat in on an informal lecture about animal totems and spirit guides. That may not sound so interesting on it's own - except that after the lecture, the discussion was rampant with questions and stories of none other than BIGFOOT! In the Mid-Atlantic region of the East Coast no less! ;)
Well, imagine my suprise/distress as I stumbled upon this posting while catching up on what I missed yesterday!
This must be the explanation for that putred, foul odor in the air at night.
The real six million dolar man was Bruce Peterson. He was the real-life pilot in the M2F2 lifting body crash shown in the intro to the show.
The real life pilot did survive the crash, but didn't get all the bionic stuff, I'm afraid. He did spend quite a while in the hospital and came out of it with an eye patch, but not a replacement eye.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:K-uJ-2R_gLAJ: www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp+%22Jane+Go odall%22+bigfoot&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Dr. Goodall: "Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to."
She wants to believe in them. Those are her words.
Try reading up on the subject before you start talking about what other people believe.
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run. He's fuzzy. Get outta here." -- Mitch Hedberg
Since I posted that link, you've moved, once again, to those mythical "_real_ scientists" who believe. Another typical usage of "appeal to authority".
You said that she believed there were bigfoots. She doesn't.
When your example of a "_real_ scientist" is shown to be incorrect, you retreat to claiming that other, unspecified "_real_ scientists" believe that junk that you keep dredging up.
Well, this is boring now. I've had enough fun poking holes in your pet theories and debunking your claims. I hope you have fun with the other kooks at the bigfoot conventions. Bye.
""I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem"
I think you are on to something. Not only is he blurry, he likes to go out in the woods in a bear suit with a gorilla mask, and he actually is known to walk around with fake plywood "bigfeet" strapped to his real bigfeet.
He's obviously a displaced Gedemondan.