Two men film alleged 'Bigfoot' in Ohio woods

[Myles]

2 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Oh I get it. I also still get lack of evidence for something, doesn't actually mean what he wants it to mean. It just means there is a lack of evidence. I also get that, for some reason my being agnostic on bigfoot somehow, is ruffling his feathers and his need to somehow convert me to his position, seems to be very important. Being agnostic on bigfoot, I don't mind his belief that bigfoot doesn't exist, I don't mind a believers belief that they do either, not sure why position of not knowing either way seems to cause much trouble for people.

Just trying to stop the spread of silliness.   Saying that bigfoot could exist all over the planet even though there has not been 1 piece of evidence found is silly.

[SKINWALKER19]

Obviously, the lack of fossil evidence gives credence to the narrative  that this equals no Bigfoot ,  lack of scat etc , I understand that viewpoint, but it only intrigues my curiosity even more .

Are the First Nation stories  on the subject just that ? . I’m open minded to conclude a paranormal element to BF , I can see BS being called out ha ha , but everyone is entitled to an opinion hey . 

The amount of missing persons that vanish every year in US national parks is compounded with the fact that no governmental records are kept , I find that jaw dropping from across the pond in the UK .

 

 

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, Myles said:

Stereo, you gave it a valiant effort, but he doesn't get it.    His phantom hominid existed how many years ago?    Bigfoot supposedly still exists yet nothing has been found.   

I hate to bring this up, but by his logic leprechauns may exist since not finding evidence doesn't mean much.   

I realize their inability to understand the argument that there is no evidence going back 40My. Going back 40My is not going to look for gorillas or chimps or any of the other extant species. Just looking for the ancestors of apes.

They make the mistake of pretending that I am saying lack of evidence is evidence of nonexistence. That is because their idea is a dismal failure and they do not understand the arguments put before them.

I am saying that the evidence shows that BF is not a product of North American evolution. There are no ancestors of apes in the New World. There is no current evidence nor any ancient evidence.

So what do we have - a big fat nothing.

But they have all of the really lame excuses that get trotted out all of the time. That is called special pleading and it is the hallmark of failures. 

They couldn't even get the story about the tapir right. For heavens sakes at least understand the material you link to.

All of the species people point to as having been recognized by science like the large squids and mountain gorillas and okapi were all known by physical samples before someone went out and obtained one. The silly idea that these searches somehow relate to BF searches is a joke. They are completely different. There were beaks and pieces of squid from whale stomachs, skulls of the gorilla, and hide of the okapi before the search went out to find the animals.

Most people that offer these lame excuses often skip over finding BF and turn to making up the habits of the creature. The growls, grunts knocks are assigned to BF without reason. They suppose that they bury their scat and their dead. They suppose that their fur or hair is extra tough and does not shed. They make up all sorts of excuses for BF not being found. It's endless special pleading.

Where are the trail cam images of BF? There are none. There are images of extremely rare animals such as cougars in NC. There are images of snow leopards. 

Here are some of those images but no BF.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/07/wolverine-camera-trap-wyoming-news/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/02/160203-jaguars-nation-animals-science-rare/

https://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2011/03/camera-trap-photos-wild-animals-exotic-smithsonian-collection/

People have been looking for BF for 60 years. Nothing to show for it. 

[Myles]

I find it odd that most believers want to claim that bigfoot only exists in the deep forests of the PNW.  Why?  It's been reported all over the world.   Why are those sightings dismissed?  

I know why.

Edited February 27, 2020 by Myles

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, SKINWALKER19 said:

Obviously, the lack of fossil evidence gives credence to the narrative  that this equals no Bigfoot ,  lack of scat etc , I understand that viewpoint, but it only intrigues my curiosity even more .

Are the First Nation stories  on the subject just that ? . I’m open minded to conclude a paranormal element to BF , I can see BS being called out ha ha , but everyone is entitled to an opinion hey . 

The amount of missing persons that vanish every year in US national parks is compounded with the fact that no governmental records are kept , I find that jaw dropping from across the pond in the UK .

 

 

Not as many people disappear as you might be led to believe. Yosemite Valley has 31 missing people since 1909.

The park is 3029 square km. The UK by comparison is 242495 sq km. Yosemite is 1.2% the size of the UK.

How many people have gone missing in the UK since 1909? Is it less than 2482 people? 

Parks are big open areas and Yosemite is full of big cliffs and rarely reached areas. Only 31 missing people in 111 years. On average someone goes missing every 3 1/2 years. 

 

Let's check the US missing persons.

https://www.namus.gov/

Quote

Over 600,000 individuals go missing in the United States every year. Fortunately, many missing children and adults are quickly found, alive and well. However, tens of thousands of individuals remain missing for more than one year – what many agencies consider “cold cases”.

It is estimated that 4,400 unidentified bodies are recovered each year, with approximately 1,000 of those bodies remaining unidentified after one year.

It will take over 1000 years for as many people to go missing in Yosemite as there are in 1 year in the US.

Parks are starting to look like a pretty safe place to me.

 

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, Myles said:

I find it add that most believers want to claim that bigfoot only exists in the deep forests of the PNW.  Why?  It's been reported all over the world.   Why are those sightings dismissed?  

I know why.

What is your idea? Mine is that the other sightings tell me that these sightings are about how the human brain works and not about an actual creature being seen.

 

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

What is your idea? Mine is that the other sightings tell me that these sightings are about how the human brain works and not about an actual creature being seen.

 

Same and add that it is too hard to argue bigfoot is alive and well in Indiana, Ohio and all the other states.   So you pick a less populated place and say he is only there.    That clobbers their "eyewitnesses are reliable" claim.   Only PNW eyewitnesses are reliable.  

[Dejarma]

bigfoot does not exist, therefore IMO there are 2 choices:

1, these idiots have been fooled by another idiot in a suit.

2, these idiots set it up which means they are nothing more than liars!  

[Myles]

8 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

bigfoot does not exist, therefore IMO there are 2 choices:

1, these idiots have been fooled by another idiot in a suit.

2, these idiots set it up which means they are nothing more than liars!  

Well there are other choices.    Mis-identification would certainly be the most likely causes.   Also the brain plays tricks.  Ever been in a scary old house when you were young.  You can swear you here noises.   Maybe even think you seen something out of the corner of your eye.  

[Dejarma]

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

Also the brain plays tricks

what are you talking about!? it's on video!

[WanderingFool0]

5 hours ago, Myles said:

Just trying to stop the spread of silliness.   Saying that bigfoot could exist all over the planet even though there has not been 1 piece of evidence found is silly.

No it isn’t silly. I am an agnostic in this subject, which means I haven’t made in claims, nor assumed any burdens of proof. Now stereoligist, and I assume now you as well, have made a claim; that bigfoot does not exist, with the claim comes the burden of proof. Well, since both of you have made a negative claim, it already puts you both in a weaker position, because a negative claim is much harder to prove.

Stereologist than made an absence of evidence appeal and that is legitimate appeal, but it too comes with a burden. In order to make a successful plea of absence of evidence is evidence of absence, one must show proof that one has carried out a thorough and sufficient search, study, survey or experiment to look for that evidence and come up with a null finding. Now if either of you can show me a search or survey of all the woods of north America looking behind every tree, rock, in every cave and valley for evidence of bigfoot and that survey returned a null result, than you will have met your burden of proof.

If not, well than I will simply counter that since neither of you have shown sufficient proof of conducting a search for evidence of bigfoot, that you really haven’t succeeded in your claim and that any confidence I have in that claim is weak at best.

Which, as an agnostic in the subject makes you both, look just as silly as I am sure you think believers of bigfoot with no evidence look.

And really there is a very good reason that burden is in the absence of evidence plea, because the day you claim something doesn’t exist, you stop looking for and being open to evidence of it’s existence. That is the day you stop being a scientist and you become a believer. A negative believer, but a believer none the less.

I do have to thank you both for providing food for thought, for a little while.

Edited February 27, 2020 by WanderingFool0
correction

[stereologist]

33 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

bigfoot does not exist, therefore IMO there are 2 choices:

1, these idiots have been fooled by another idiot in a suit.

2, these idiots set it up which means they are nothing more than liars!  

I would add that humans are prone to priming. If someone says they have seen something weird that is tall and hairy it makes other people something similar.

People are also prone to the bandwagon effect. They want to be a part of the show. It's not about lying but about wanting to be an experiencer. A good historical example of this is the Shaver Mysteries which I started a thread on in the Modern Mysteries forum.

I also think there is something in our brain that makes an unknown vague person shape into an animal of some sorts. It's just a guess on my part but it kind of fits the situation. You see someone and can't really make them out and your brain decides to be safe and converts your impression into a potential danger - a wild animal. A better safe than sorry move.

[stereologist]

7 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

No it isn’t silly. I am an agnostic in this subject, which means I haven’t made in claims, nor assumed any burdens of proof. Now stereoligist, and I assume now you as well, have made a claim; that bigfoot does not exist, with the claim comes the burden of proof. Well, since both of you have made a negative claim, it already puts you both in a weaker position, because a negative claim is much harder to prove.

Stereologist than made an absence of evidence appeal and that is legitimate appeal, but it too comes with a burden. In order to make a successful plea of absence of evidence is evidence of absence, one must show proof that one has carried out a thorough and sufficient search, study, survey or experiment to look for that evidence and come up with a null finding. Now if either of you can show me a search or survey of all the woods of north America looking behind every tree, rock, in every cave and valley for evidence of bigfoot and that survey returned a null result, than you will have met your burden of proof.

If not, well than I will simply counter that since neither of you have shown sufficient proof of conducting a search for evidence of bigfoot, that you really haven’t succeeded in your claim and that any confidence I have in that claim is weak at best.

Which, as an agnostic in the subject makes you both, look just as silly as I am sure you think believers of bigfoot with no evidence look.

And really there is a very good reason that burden is in the absence of evidence plea, because the day you claim something doesn’t exist, you stop looking for and being open to evidence of it’s existence. That is the day you stop being a scientist and you become a believer. A negative believer, but a believer none the less.

I do have to thank you both for providing food for thought, for a little while.

I see the chance of BF as being the same as finding cities of gold in Texas. There might be some hidden cities of gold out there but the chances were more likely when the conquistadors were searching after these rumors. BF is extremely unlikely to exist since there is zip, nothing, nada after at least 60 years of searching. The more time that passes the less likely it is that BF exists. 

Not only is there an absence of evidence from the present time but there is no evidence from the past 40My that there have been apes or the ancestors of apes in the entire Western hemisphere. 

There really is no burden to show that there is no BF. The burden is on those promoting BF. That is where the burden lies. Those that point out that there are no leprechauns have no burden. Those pointing out that there are no dragons or werewolves or vampires or fairies have no burden. It is those claiming that these are true and exist have the burden. They have the burden and they alone.

Where are the fossils, scat, hairs, blood, DNA, bones, teeth, etc. etc. etc.?

Pointing out the failure of the proponents and pointing out that the believers have nothing has no burden. 

Pointing out that the believers have made really a laughable effort at supporting their case has no burden either.

What really is silly is people saying they are agnostic and pretending those pointing out the failures to demonstrate their case have a burden.

[WanderingFool0]

8 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I see the chance of BF as being the same as finding cities of gold in Texas. There might be some hidden cities of gold out there but the chances were more likely when the conquistadors were searching after these rumors. BF is extremely unlikely to exist since there is zip, nothing, nada after at least 60 years of searching. The more time that passes the less likely it is that BF exists. 

Not only is there an absence of evidence from the present time but there is no evidence from the past 40My that there have been apes or the ancestors of apes in the entire Western hemisphere. 

There really is no burden to show that there is no BF. The burden is on those promoting BF. That is where the burden lies. Those that point out that there are no leprechauns have no burden. Those pointing out that there are no dragons or werewolves or vampires or fairies have no burden. It is those claiming that these are true and exist have the burden. They have the burden and they alone.

Where are the fossils, scat, hairs, blood, DNA, bones, teeth, etc. etc. etc.?

Pointing out the failure of the proponents and pointing out that the believers have nothing has no burden. 

Pointing out that the believers have made really a laughable effort at supporting their case has no burden either.

What really is silly is people saying they are agnostic and pretending those pointing out the failures to demonstrate their case have a burden.

Thanks for the reply, but I can not agree that you have no burden of proof. In discussion and debate anyone making a claim, whether it is positive or negative, have a burden of proof for their claim. You are correct that bigfoot believers have a burden of proof for their positive claim for bigfoot, but those making a negative claim for bigfoot do as well.

[Dejarma]

6 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

In order to make a successful plea of absence of evidence is evidence of absence, one must show proof that one has carried out a thorough and sufficient search, study, survey or experiment to look for that evidence and come up with a null finding

I do not feel a need to throw a bottle off the top of a 20 story building onto concrete to prove it will smash.... The outcome is bleeding obvious.
After claims of a large hairy man-like creature living in the mountains of Africa; Captain Robert von Beringe (with very limited tech) ventured into a vast distant strange land in 1902 & discovered the gorilla.... The reason he found it is because it really exists!

When one considers the tech we have today; Americans who believe bigfoot exists STILL haven't proved it on their own doorstep! Therefore rational thinking folk have no choice to feel bigfoot does not exist= to me it's bleeding obvious....

So if one is looking for: 'evidence of absence' then here it is.

[stereologist]

19 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Thanks for the reply, but I can not agree that you have no burden of proof. In discussion and debate anyone making a claim, whether it is positive or negative, have a burden of proof for their claim. You are correct that bigfoot believers have a burden of proof for their positive claim for bigfoot, but those making a negative claim for bigfoot do as well.

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

In fact I believe you are quite mistaken once again about your ideas about my stance on the issue. The burden is now on you to verify your idea. Please show where you get your ideas form by quoting me.

After quoting me you can determine if I supported my position or not.

I already know you misused the tapir situation in which you apparently were unaware that science was aware of the animal but did not assign it a new species as it has now done.

 

[stereologist]

21 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

I do not feel a need to throw a bottle off the top of a 20 story building onto concrete to prove it will smash.... The outcome is bleeding obvious.
After claims of a large hairy man-like creature living in the mountains of Africa; Captain Robert von Beringe (with very limited tech) ventured into a vast distant strange land in 1902 & discovered the gorilla.... The reason he found it is because it really exists!

When one considers the tech we have today; Americans who believe bigfoot exists STILL haven't proved it on their own doorstep! Therefore rational thinking folk have no choice to feel bigfoot does not exist= to me it's bleeding obvious....

So if one is looking for: 'evidence of absence' then here it is.

The problem is that WanderingFool0 does not like our reasoning. I also believe that WanderingFool0 has my position wrong. 

The burden is now on them to show that I stated what they claim. I think if they look carefully they will see that they have misrepresented what I posted. They certainly did not understand the fossil record issue. They misunderstood the tapir issue.

[Dejarma]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The problem is that WanderingFool0 does not like our reasoning. I also believe that WanderingFool0 has my position wrong. 

The burden is now on them to show that I stated what they claim. I think if they look carefully they will see that they have misrepresented what I posted. They certainly did not understand the fossil record issue. They misunderstood the tapir issue.

yep.... nothing new, oh well

[WanderingFool0]

11 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I wouldn't expect you to understand.

In fact I believe you are quite mistaken once again about your ideas about my stance on the issue. The burden is now on you to verify your idea. Please show where you get your ideas form by quoting me.

After quoting me you can determine if I supported my position or not.

I already know you misused the tapir situation in which you apparently were unaware that science was aware of the animal but did not assign it a new species as it has now done.

 

My position is I don't know and I am still awaiting evidence. Also, I don't believe either side of the discussion has proven their positions. The believers have not produced any evidence of a bigfoot, but I don't think the whole of the woods of the united states especially in the sparsely populated great north west has been thoroughly searched for evidence of bigfoot and therefore I don't think your side has proven your position either. So, i am not swayed by either side of the debate and will remain an agnostic on the subject.

[stereologist]

Just now, WanderingFool0 said:

My position is I don't know and I am still awaiting evidence. Also, I don't believe either side of the discussion has proven their positions. The believers have not produced any evidence of a bigfoot, but I don't think the whole of the woods of the united states especially in the sparsely populated great north west has been thoroughly searched for evidence of bigfoot and therefore I don't think your side has proven your position either. So, i am not swayed by either side of the debate and will remain an agnostic on the subject.

So you have claimed what my position is but I believe you are very wrong as you have been about other issues in this thread.

Support what you claim about me. That is your burden.

 

[WanderingFool0]

On 2/26/2020 at 10:49 AM, stereologist said:

They make the mistake of pretending that I am saying lack of evidence is evidence of nonexistence. That is because their idea is a dismal failure and they do not understand the arguments put before them.

I am saying that the evidence shows that BF is not a product of North American evolution. There are no ancestors of apes in the New World. There is no current evidence nor any ancient evidence.

So what do we have - a big fat nothing.

Well than I apologize, I misread your position and went off half cocked this whole time. I thought you were using the lack of apes and hominids in America to say there were no bigfoot here and they  didn't exist. I am only human and I do apologize again.

[Dejarma]

25 minutes ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well than I apologize

well 'then' not 'than' !! This is not picking up on typos because it's not a typo-- it's just something I find annoying...

All in good jest 

[WanderingFool0]

2 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

well 'then' not 'than' !! This is not picking up on typos because it's not a typo-- it's just something I find annoying...

All in good jest 

Well I make plenty of mistakes in spelling, grammar and omitted words. Anyway, hope there is no hard feelings from that discussion either. If there is I apologize to you too.

[stereologist]

13 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Well than I apologize, I misread your position and went off half cocked this whole time. I thought you were using the lack of apes and hominids in America to say there were no bigfoot here and they  didn't exist. I am only human and I do apologize again.

I have been saying all along that it is extremely unlikely that BF exists. As we all seem to agree, there is no evidence and proving a universal negative is difficult to impossible. My example of cities of gold in Texas was once a difficult challenge and now is impossible. But BF's lack of evidence continues to be true as time goes on. 

I have misunderstood the position of other posters because I thnk they fall into the same category as so many other posters pushing an idea. Cheers.

[SKINWALKER19]

I’ve just listened to the Ron Murhead / Al Berry  Bigfoot vocalisations again from the early 1970s . I last listened about 15 years ago and they still remain compelling to ones ears.

I'm wondering what other forum members have made of the recordings , apologies if this has been covered before.