Hiker is stalked for several days by 'Bigfoot' in Oregon

[Guyver]

The extreme skeptics of this phenomenon who exist on this forum have a very extreme, almost religious, non-scientific, psychological position called cognitive bias.  Actual science guards against this very cleverly.  The way that “bigfoot” is mocked by these skeptics is akin to their mocking of the UFO phenomenon.  They would mock every time you posted up evidence of UFO’s, and nowadays, even the US Government admits that they exist and have come forward with it.  Most importantly, we have creditable eye-witness testimony confirmed by video evidence that the phenomenon is real.

The same could be said about sasquatch.  Right now, it’s not a species confirmed by science, but new species are confirmed by science each year.  We already know that biologists - aka - scientists have observed the creature called Orang Pendek, and prior to their visual confirmation of it, they found its footprints.  Now, the Orang-Pendek is not a species confirmed by science yet, but it’s footprints have been documented and it has been observed.  Therefore, it is likely that it will be confirmed in the near future, even as the lion-killer apes were confirmed by science, and all it takes is a single bone or body part from a single specimen in today’s modern world to perform dna analysis on the part and confirm it.  

[Resume]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

The extreme skeptics of this phenomenon who exist on this forum have a very extreme, almost religious, non-scientific, psychological position called cognitive bias.  Actual science guards against this very cleverly.  

Then why do you engage in cognitive bias (confirmation bias in this case) so often?  Identifying an unknown vocalization as bigfoot without any evidence the creature exists is the epitome of bias.

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

The way that “bigfoot” is mocked by these skeptics is akin to their mocking of the UFO phenomenon.  They would mock every time you posted up evidence of UFO’s, and nowadays, even the US Government admits that they exist and have come forward with it.  Most importantly, we have creditable eye-witness testimony confirmed by video evidence that the phenomenon is real.

Who's claimiing UFOs or UO, or just U don't exist?  Plenty of those; it's just when they're identified and claimed to be alien spacecraft that's the rub.  Please provide a citation that the U.S. claims they're alien craft because I missed that.

ETA: This is a red herring, btw.

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

The same could be said about sasquatch.  Right now, it’s not a species confirmed by science, but new species are confirmed by science each year.

Not 6-9ft bidedal apes occupying a crowded continent.

 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

We already know that biologists - aka - scientists have observed the creature called Orang Pendek, and prior to their visual confirmation of it, they found its footprints.  Now, the Orang-Pendek is not a species confirmed by science . . . 

At least you are correct about this.

 

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

 . . . but it’s footprints have been documented and it has been observed.

CANE.  Claims Are Not Evidence.

Please provide a citation from a credible journal.

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

Therefore, it is likely that it will be confirmed in the near future, even as the lion-killer apes were confirmed by science, and all it takes is a single bone or body part from a single specimen in today’s modern world to perform dna analysis on the part and confirm it.  

 

Not a single anything bigfoot has ever been confirmed in the (at least)15,000 years humans have inhabited North America.  

Every no bigfoot anything year is the same as the previous (at least) 15,000; I will give $2000 to the wildlife conservation charity of your choice it this year is any different.  

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Guyver]

Here’s another interesting observation for the crowd.  These “skeptics” around here so confident in their position, and so quick to dismiss any claim, are not even aware of the latest research.  They are getting confused by research from 10 years ago that is out of date.  The skeptics are out of date and they don’t even know it because they refused to watch the video. 

[Guyver]

And furthermore, for any other interested readers out there, the place where the skeptics failed is documented in season 2, episode 13, of the show “The Proof is Out There.”  Watch it for yourself and come to your own conclusion independently of what these nay-sayers claim, based on the facts.

[Guyver]

Modern AI technology was used on all copies extant of that video.  This technology has proven successful for Callaway Golf who has used it to design their drivers for the last three years.  They are a billion dollar corporation.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Here’s another interesting observation for the crowd.  These “skeptics” around here so confident in their position, and so quick to dismiss any claim, are not even aware of the latest research.  They are getting confused by research from 10 years ago that is out of date.  The skeptics are out of date and they don’t even know it because they refused to watch the video. 

So hilarious. I am very confident that there is no evidence for a BF. Sightings are often in congested areas where it simply is not possible for a large hominid to go hidden for hundreds of years.

No bones, no teeth, no fossils, no fur.

No bodies killed by floods, fires, cars, etc.

Blurry photos and tracks. That's it.

You have nothing but complaints about those pointing out the obvious failure of your claims.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

And furthermore, for any other interested readers out there, the place where the skeptics failed is documented in season 2, episode 13, of the show “The Proof is Out There.”  Watch it for yourself and come to your own conclusion independently of what these nay-sayers claim, based on the facts.

And please tell us what is there to be seen because I will not waste my time searching for whatever fooled you.

I don't want to guess what you fell for.

[stereologist]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Modern AI technology was used on all copies extant of that video.  This technology has proven successful for Callaway Golf who has used it to design their drivers for the last three years.  They are a billion dollar corporation.

AI is not transferable knowledge. It's application in one instance is not useful in another.

Your suggestion here is without merit.

[Resume]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Here’s another interesting observation for the crowd.  These “skeptics” around here so confident in their position, and so quick to dismiss any claim, are not even aware of the latest research.  They are getting confused by research from 10 years ago that is out of date.  The skeptics are out of date and they don’t even know it because they refused to watch the video. 

Here's a not so interesting observation: Zero biological evidence for bigfoot.  Just claims fashioned to gull the credulous.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

And furthermore, for any other interested readers out there, the place where the skeptics failed is documented in season 2, episode 13, of the show “The Proof is Out There.”  Watch it for yourself and come to your own conclusion independently of what these nay-sayers claim, based on the facts.

Yes watch a TV show, clearly that'll get it done.  The facts are that footie-foo-foo remains undocumented because all of the claims for its existence are woefully insufficient to the claim.  

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

9 hours ago, Guyver said:

Modern AI technology was used on all copies extant of that video.  This technology has proven successful for Callaway Golf who has used it to design their drivers for the last three years.  They are a billion dollar corporation.

This one is just silly, apples to guava: Where's the monkey?

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

13 hours ago, Guyver said:

The extreme skeptics of this phenomenon <crapsnip> 

No, just skeptics looking for sufficient evidence for the claim.

[Resume]

31 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So hilarious. I am very confident that there is no evidence for a BF. Sightings are often in congested areas where it simply is not possible for a large hominid to go hidden for hundreds of years.

No bones, no teeth, no fossils, no fur.

No bodies killed by floods, fires, cars, etc.

Blurry photos and tracks. That's it.

You have nothing but complaints about those pointing out the obvious failure of your claims.

You forgot stories, lots and lots of stories, some of them even interesting.  Footie-foo-foo: All stories, no monkey.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

19 hours ago, Resume said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

 

so I guess this proves ALL eyewitnesses are wrong because our eyes are all screwed up. Thanks for that

[Resume]

29 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

so I guess this proves ALL eyewitnesses are wrong because our eyes are all screwed up. Thanks for that

Nope, it demonstrates the mundane, uncontroversial fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable.  As is memory.  These are demonstrated facts, and yet another reason unverifiable, unfalsifiable anecdotes are **** evidence.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

When I start out by saying **OPINION**, you want what???

Guyver was making a truth claim about an alleged footie roar.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

31 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And then there are skeptics that *claim* the witness is wrong at every convenient situation, all without a whiff of proof.

Nope, just pointing out the demonstrated scientific fact that eyewitness testimony is oten unreliable (sometimes with horrible results) and memory is malleable.  Numerous studies have demonstrated this.  Your no "whiff of proof" claim is utterly without merit considering this evidence, and of course, you woefully misunderstand the fact that "proofs" are the purvue of mathmatics; science tests claims*, and the claim that memory or testimony is universally reliable has been falsified.  Which is why anecdotes are such **** evidence.

Also, the bigfoot hypothesis has failed for at least 15,000 years.  Maybe this year though!!

 

* Also, the conclusions drawn from these tests are all provisional and subject to revision upon further data.  Unlike dogma.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Resume

[Resume]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

It seems you have not been able to read and comprehend the link that was provided to you. That is not what was stated.

You might to go back and learn for a change. It has been known for a long time that eyewitness reports are unreliable. It is also well established that memories change over time.

It really looks bad for you when you purposely state things that are not correct.

Yeah, the problem isn't that people are mistaken, lying, etc. all the time, it's just that all humans can be mistaken, lying, etc. some of the time and since there is no way to accurately determine the difference, anectdotes are useless as evidence.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, Resume said:

Yeah, the problem isn't that people are mistaken, lying, etc. all the time, it's just that all humans can be mistaken, lying, etc. some of the time and since there is no way to accurately determine the difference, anectdotes are useless as evidence.

I agree completely.

Years ago I met some people that said they saw Champ, the Lake Champlain monster. I asked simple questions and got remarkably different answers. They told me all they saw were humps. I asked how many. I got 5 to 9 humps. Big deal. Not an issue. I asked if it was heading to the left or to the right, which is south and north respectively. Evenly split. That surprised me. I asked if it submerged and disappeared. About half said yes and the other half said no. Simple things cold not be determined. That was an eye opener for me.

[the13bats]

Back to the patterson hoax the holy grail to grasp by true believers, season 2 #13

My first observation is wow, meldrum is showing his age, looking tired an heavy but thats beside the point,

If one takes a film and keep in mind they are always using copies of the PGF and makes claims they enhancted it and now can see this or that detail then it ends their credibility and integrity right there because the details they claim to see were never there, the film is too low a resolution.

Now meldrum harps on the foot flex, getting past him reading to much into over enlarged to the point of blurry distortion film grain the foot is flat and bright white,

What those like meldrum avoid talking about is the "diaper butt" which has no crack and doesnt move much at all, which it would if this wasnt a suit,

Now for people like meldrum who make assinine claims a suit like that could not have been made in 68 i present 1900s dancing pig.

It has far more motion and detail than the suit in the PGF  so if i go by the closed minded non science based on an agenda thinking of meldrum then the only conclusion we can reach is in the 1900s there was a 6 foot mutant pig who loved to ham it up....

[the13bats]

Adding another red flag in the PGF hoax,

Patterson seemed to have a draw to female Bigfoots,

The drawing he made for a book before he made the film,

The drooping breasts, hair in bangs, clear of hair eye nose area, diaper butt, could be he used the drawing as a guide for the suit.

Edited January 24, 2022 by the13bats

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Enough with the personal attacks please.

[the13bats]

On 1/22/2022 at 3:41 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

so I guess this proves ALL eyewitnesses are wrong because our eyes are all screwed up. Thanks for that

Its not a poke at eyewitnesses but rather how very failable eyewitness testimony is, its unreliable for all kinds of reasons not just a vision problem, try this,

A person tells you the story how they saw your partner cheating on you but they offer zero evidence to back up the accusation, most people would demand far more than just the story to run out and get a divorce.

Courts require physical evidence to collaborate eye witness stories.

Lots of people see something that they dont know what it really is doesnt mean they are full or bull or mental but even sincere folks can an are wrong.

[Myles]

7 hours ago, the13bats said:

Adding another red flag in the PGF hoax,

Patterson seemed to have a draw to female Bigfoots,

The drawing he made for a book before he made the film,

The drooping breasts, hair in bangs, clear of hair eye nose area, diaper butt, could be he used the drawing as a guide for the suit.

Red flag for me is the hairy nipples.    Are there any animals with fur covering their nipples?

[Myles]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:59 AM, Guyver said:

And furthermore, for any other interested readers out there, the place where the skeptics failed is documented in season 2, episode 13, of the show “The Proof is Out There.”  Watch it for yourself and come to your own conclusion independently of what these nay-sayers claim, based on the facts.

You know that those shows are entertainment and are not required to be truthful, right?      I'm not claiming they leave stuff out or speak untruths, but they can if they want.