Colorado train passengers capture Bigfoot on video

[DaveC426913]

Furthermore, why would a man saying he saw bigfoot 27 times lie about that?

You know perfectly well why. When some omne has come forward claiming to refute one of your pet ideas, you point out that they're probably making a profit off it and therfore have an agenda.



For example: Why would Mick West lie? And yet, you assume he does because it suits your agenda to do so.

Given all the evidence for bigfoot's existence, it is not out of the question.

That is self-referential and therefore invalid.
"I think it's true because it supports what I already think is true."
We are lookng for independent evidence that supports (or refutes) the conjecture that Bigfoot is real. It is by no means a settled issue.

You're trying to have it both ways.
You believe people simply when it suits your pre-existing beliefs and don't believe people when it goes against your pre-existing beliefs.
That is textbook Religious belief.


Why am I bothering? You know all this. You are simply trolling.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

I was asked by James if I would believe him if he told me his dog is named binoculars. And I said I would. There is nothing dubious or extraordinary about that. Why would he lie about something like that?

In this case, I did lie. Why did I lie? To demonstrate the dangers of just believing everything somebody tells you, without question. You're phenomenally gullible, MR. Note that I am not a compulsive liar and yet, on this occasion, I told you something that wasn't true.

Furthermore, why would a man saying he saw bigfoot 27 times lie about that?

For the notoriety, obviously. Maybe there's also money it, if his youtube channel is monetised, or he's being paid to talk about his many alleged Bigfoot sightings etc.

It beggars belief that you're too stupid to think this through. Surely, you're just trolling?

Given all the evidence for bigfoot's existence, it is not out of the question.

27 sightings and not single photograph or piece of video, or a single Bigfoot hair left over to show for it? The guy would have to be as stupid as you want us to believe you are.

Yes..I would believe you. Unless I suspected you were trying to make a point about people always lying about their account of their own experience. Then I would believe you were lying in order to make a point.

You should have had the good sense to look at the wider context and at least have an inkling of a suspicion that I might be lying about my mythical dog. But you didn't.

Doesn't being that gullible bother you, even the tiniest bit?

Do you want to buy that bridge I told you about earlier? I can sell it to you at a bargain price. There's also a big statue in New York harbour that I can sell to you at a bargain basement price. I'll throw it in with the bridge deal, if you like.

Another elaborate and contrived scenario to make a point.

Nothing elaborate about somebody telling a lie to try to get 15 minutes of internet fame. It happens all the time.

We're talking average everyday experience here, not some sinister plot to deceive me.

There's no need for a complicated plot to deceive you, obviously. You're an easy mark.

 

[DaveC426913]

It beggars belief that you're too stupid to think this through. Surely, you're just trolling?

Yeah, he got me again. He lures me in with his apparent sincerity and fresh-faced credulity, and then once in a while he lets the mask slip and reimnds us that he's not really serious - all this is a persona - a trolling persona, that he's been employing all along to keep the patter going.

He slipped up this time, pretending he couldn't imagine why someone might lie, when just a few pages ago he was the one banging that drum.

He knows my weakness. He knows I can't resist the lure of ignorance and irrationality he keeps tossing out.

But it's all just trolling.

 

[foghorn]

Yeah, he got me again. He lures me in with his apparent sincerity and fresh-faced credulity, and then once in a while he lets the mask slip and reimnds us that he's not really serious - all this is a persona - a trolling persona, that he's been employing all along to keep the patter going.
He slipped up this time, pretending he couldn't imagine why someone might lie, when just a few pages ago he was the one banging that drum.
He knows my weakness. He knows I can't resist the lure of ignorance and irrationality he keeps tossing out.
But it's all just trolling.

"But it's all just trolling"
If that's the case there must be a weird side to MR. How long as it been going on now?

Maybe Yazata is a victim here too.
But Yazata will no doubt probably shrug off your post and my one here as an attempt to belittle MR.
But, what does lie beneath the continued trolling if not the subject / topic of a thread?

 

[Pinball1970]

I was asked by James if I would believe him if he told me his dog is named binoculars. And I said I would. There is nothing dubious or extraordinary about that. Why would he lie about something like that? Furthermore, why would a man saying he saw bigfoot 27 times lie about that? Given all the evidence for bigfoot's existence, it is not out of the question.

Sometimes people are mistaken or just lie for reasons given above.


In terms of “all the evidence for big foots existence.”


I will post the scientific view for a third time from wiki.


“Expert consensus is that allegations of the existence of Bigfoot are not credible. Belief in the existence of such a large, ape-like creature is more often attributed to hoaxes, confusion, or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."”


You could ask, “What criteria are the scientists using to come to that conclusion?”


They will use primatology, anthropology, mammalogy, zoology, palaeontology, genetics, ethology and evolutionary biology to name a few.


So the guys who are experts in animals (including bears and primates) the climate they live in, their behaviours, their habitat, their evolutionary history/fossil record and their genome.

That is how they can rule things in (bear) and rule things out, non human primate, Neanderthal/Homo species.

 

[DaveC426913]

But, what does lie beneath the continued trolling if not the subject / topic of a thread?

He's mad that we've habitually eviserated him; now he's just pretending he was trolling all along, and keeping it up as a form of spite. It's a defense mechanism.

But Yazata will no doubt probably shrug off your post and my one here as an attempt to belittle MR.

Yazata does not see my posts. He's mad that I called him out as a hypocrite. That too is a defense mechanism.

 

[Magical Realist]

“Expert consensus is that allegations of the existence of Bigfoot are not credible. Belief in the existence of such a large, ape-like creature is more often attributed to hoaxes, confusion, or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."”

That may be the conclusion of scientists in their ivory towers, but among the real experts (the hunters and investigators who actually go out and search for them) the evidence remains solid. Thousands of eyewitness sightings, photos and videos, hundreds of casts of 18 in footprints, fur samples, nests in remote forests, and recordings of bigfoot howls. If they don't exist there is alot of hoaxing goin on! I don't buy it.

 

[DaveC426913]

, but among the real experts (the hunters and investigators who actually go out and search for them) the evidence remains solid.

You mean those profit-mongering film producers?

A pity they haven't brought any of that evidence home then!

There are exactly as many confirmed cases of Bigfoot out there in the field among your film producers as there are in any scientists' towers. Namely, zero, to several decimal places.

I don't buy it.

We would all be astonished if you did. You have proven yourself time and time again to be gullible and science-ignorant. Or just a troll. Or both.

 

[Magical Realist]

Dermal ridges found on Bigfoot footprint casts by forensic expert:

https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/science-mysteries/dermal-ridges.html

"Jimmy Chilcutt, a crime scene investigator, is one of the foremost experts in Dermal Ridges and in the documentary, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, he examines the best samples of Bigfoot footprint castings. In his work, Chilcutt says he has to be very careful and professional because his work can put people in jail. Chilcutt has fingerprinted every known great ape species and hence, he is also an expert in primate dermal ridges. Through his research, he is able to establish gender and race of primates via examination of dermal ridges.

According to his research, human dermal ridges run horizontally across the feet, while in primates, the ridges run diagonally. But in the Bigfoot castings, the dermal ridges run vertically across the side of the feet. This goes to show that the Bigfoot footprint casting was clearly not made by a man or an ape. On top of that, the Bigfoot footprint cast is twice the thickness of footprints made by a human. This means that the creature making the print is much heavier than a human being and is around the size of the creature that we commonly know as Bigfoot. In the video, Chilcutt notes that a particular Bigfoot footprint cast he was examining had the same dermal ridge patterns as another footprint cast taken 10 years apart and that the samples taken are hundreds of miles apart. This is clear evidence that there is obviously more than just one Bigfoot, and that they are in fact a species like humans, spread over a large area. On top of that, they can be individually identified by their dermal ridges, just as humans can be individually identified by their fingerprints.

Dermal ridges can only be seen under magnification, and not with the naked eye. If the castings were hoaxes, it would take a very high level of sophistication to produce, either a scientist or a crime scene investigator, both of whom would have had to be specialised in dermal ridges. A hoaxer would need to painstakingly carve out each line of the dermal ridges, which run parallel to each other and do not intersect, onto a mould. This in itself would be a feat, given the precision and intricacy of the lines. This mould would then have had to be used to create an impression in the mud or soil in various places, for other people to come and make castings of. What makes the situation even more unlikely is that each mould would have to be different, but include the intricate dermal ridges. Who would have the specialisation to do something like that, and what benefit would they get from doing so? It doesn’t make sense that it would be a hoax, given the intricacy and the lack of benefit that such work would entail.

Dermal ridges have been found on Bigfoot castings from all over the world, and when they are examined together, they all have the exact type of vertical characteristics. For someone to have hoaxed the footprints is highly unlikely due to the geographical difference and the length of time between when the footprints were found and the castings made. Another fact is that dermal ridges are only known occur in humans and primates, however it is scientifically clear that the Bigfoot castings do not belong to either of these two bi-pedal creatures, especially since the dermal ridges are completely different. Despite the fact that the footprint castings vary between location and time, which they would in any species, the fact that dermal ridges are clearly evident on them under magnification, and that they are different, just goes to show that Bigfoot is not just one creature, or something that was imagined, but an actual unknown species, just like humans and primates. In essence dermal ridges is solid proof that the Bigfoot species exists...."

 

[wegs]

alleged “Bigfoot footprint castings.”

Grizzly bears are known to have dermal edges on their paws. I’m surprised that a crime scene investigator would assume that what he has “examined” couldn’t easily be considered large grizzly bear footprints. He instead makes the leap to something that has no scientific proof for its existence. I’d be okay if he came across as guessing, but the article reads as though we (the readers) should just assume those were Bigfoot footprints, with no other possible alternative.

“I’ve studied Bigfoot footprints all over the world.” No, he hasn’t. He is opining that they’re Bigfoot footprints, but they are more likely grizzly bear footprints.

 

[DaveC426913]

Did the expert just forget to check the samples against the dermal ridges found on bears (who frequent perambulate bipedally) - the leading hypothesized culprit for Bigfoot sightings?

 

[Magical Realist]

alleged “Bigfoot footprint castings.”

Grizzly bears are known to have dermal edges on their paws. I’m surprised that a crime scene investigator would assume that what he has “examined” couldn’t easily be considered large grizzly bear footprints. He instead makes the leap to something that has no scientific proof for its existence. I’d be okay if he came across as guessing, but the article reads as though we (the readers) should just assume those were Bigfoot footprints, with no other possible alternative.

“I’ve studied Bigfoot footprints all over the world.” No, he hasn’t. He is opining that they’re Bigfoot footprints, but they are more likely a grizzly bear print.

Uh...bigfoot prints look nothing like bear prints. That's why they are solid evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

alleged “Bigfoot footprint castings.”

Grizzly bears are known to have dermal edges on their paws. I’m surprised that a crime scene investigator would assume that what he has “examined” couldn’t easily be considered large grizzly bear footprints. He instead makes the leap to something that has no scientific proof for its existence.

Great minds think alike.

That's one of the primary ploys for these shows. The scientist himself may be sincere, but they will ask specific questions and take those answers without the broader context. It takes a discerning reader to notice that they happen to leave out certain explanations.

Such shows should never be trusted as a primary source of any evidence. They are, first and foremost, entertainment shows. It is their job to spectaculize the subject matter. They have no place in a serious discussion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Uh...bigfoot prints look nothing like bear prints. That's why they are solid evidence

Note to the discerning reader: in critical analysis, we examine all possibilities and angles, not just the ones that confirm our wishful thinking.

 

[wegs]

Uh...bigfoot prints look nothing like bear prints. That's why they are solid evidence.

I don’t believe that above pic is of (alleged) Bigfoot footprints. I’d say that this genre of pseudo-science is rife with hoaxsters. Just my humble opinion, MR.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t believe that above pic is of (alleged) Bigfoot footprints. I’d say that this genre of pseudo-science is rife with hoaxsters. Just my humble opinion, MR.

That is a good point. Unless the pic comes with credentials attesting to its origin and veracity, it's just a random picture of feet. Another ploy (or just laziness).

For example: the provenance of that pic MR put up is from imgUR - a meme site.


And the post has zero mention of Bigfeet - it dpens;t evne have title for context!



MR, did you literally just Google "feet castings" and post whatever popped up??



That's almost as good as his Google UFO images. We should start a thread devoted to for MR's trolling gaffs.

 

[Magical Realist]

So they can't be bear prints, therefore the casts must be all fake? lol

 

[Pinball1970]

Uh...bigfoot prints look nothing like bear prints. That's why they are solid evidence.

The scientific community disagree with you as I repeatedly quoted and posted.
They use the techniques and knowledge from published literature via cutting edge research.

If you continue to refer to YouTube posts and ignore why certain species are pretty much ruled out by professionals, then I am out.

 

[Magical Realist]

That is a good point. Unless the pic comes with credentials attesting to its origin and veracity, it's just a random picture of feet. Another ploy (or just laziness).

For example: the provenance of that pic MR put up is from imgUR - a meme site.

The photo of the footprints are casts of bigfoot footprints collected by anthropologist Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University:

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna49688342

 

[Magical Realist]

The scientific community disagree with you as I repeatedly quoted and posted.
They use the techniques and knowledge from published literature via cutting edge research.

If you continue to refer to YouTube posts and ignore why certain species are pretty much ruled out by professionals, then I am out.

Bye bye!