I know what Occam's Razor is. When you think you need to ever define something, think again, because I've heard of every logical tool you have, and I probably know more about all of them. I also know that Occam's Razor is a generalisation that does not always hold true. The simplest explanation is usually the best, not always.

You CAN refute the existence of Bigfoot. Stop creating false dilemmas. If you can refute all proof of something, it is reasonable to assume it isn't true. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, as all seemingly solid proof has been refuted.

However, it may be there, whether those were fake or not, 'tis possible.

The fact that you know what Occam's Razor is does not diminish my argument. It's not a sure thing, but it's a general rule, especially when there's no further evidence for 1).

The point is I am not going to further attempt to refute all evidence of bigfoot (mostly just the tape), unless you present more. I've already pretty much killed all your evidence, with the exception of that film. Again, using Occam's Razor, we can only come to the conclusion that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

Is that what you're saying?
It follows that if you can refute all evidence (any one proof is enough to prove something? makes sense) except for one piece that is easily and plausibly explained, it is still pretty reasonable to assume that it isn't true.

You can't refute the tape, so you're trying to steer the discussion away. You couldn't kill DNA evidence, so you said that it shouldn't count as TV shows aren't peer reviewed.

You have yet to disprove a single piece of evidence I've presented.

I refuted your pictures.

I'm not. I acknowledged your video tape as a piece of evidence, though Bigfoot is not the only explanation.

I've seen the show in question (Monster Quest I think). Unlike some television documentaries, which are objective and more or less fair, this show's goal seems to be to make people say "NO WAI! [insert mythical creature] IS REAL!!!" This goes along with that new UFO show, it seems to be the channel's new (and IMO horribly terrible) angle.

Furthermore, you have not shown me any objective evidence. The Wikipedia article shows me that the episode in question exists, and that the episode also claims to find DNA evidence "of some unknown animal that is closer to humans than the chimpanzee." Assuming they did, how much closer? Was it enough to constitute a new species (unknown means they don't know what it is, whether or not they really tried or even cared is a different matter), or was it a small enough margin that it could just be a slightly different strain of chimp than the one whose DNA we have on file? What do genetic and biological experts think of this (outside of the Bigfoot claim, just looking at the DNA)?

Finally, it is very reasonable to be skeptical given the context of this potentially outstanding claim. If this is the only source, why hasn't anybody else picked up on it? Such a claim would surely attract attention, no? TV shows are not bound to provide good information. They can be deceptive and sometimes outright false. Given the nature of this show, I suspect this may be the case.


As for trying to steer the conversation away, that was not my intention at all. I mistakenly thought that we had finished discussing evidence. Once we do, the natural next step would be to try to draw some reasonable conclusions on this issue. I intend to try this again once we finish discussing evidence, and you should feel free to do so as well.

Uh, more or less most of the episodes get no evidence.

EVEN if it was a new subspecies of Chimp, what was it doing in America.

And you did not refute the pictures. Take a picture of an orange paintball at night, and find a suit. Because I can tell you 100% they aren't photoshopped.

I don't really care. Two photos are never conclusive evidence, especially since you couldn't give me any reasonable context for them (this is a couple pages ago). I do not support the orange paint ball theory (it seems rather pointless to me). I don't care how these photos were created, but most larger than human species in existence have more than two photos (again, pages ago).

I listed several other reasons to be skeptical about it.

Given that you accept the conclusion that both pieces of evidence were questionable, and that we have no further evidence to discuss (as indicated by your lack of response), we now have two possible conclusions.

1)There is an undiscovered species for which no evidence exists elsewhere, that migrates across the United States every year.
or
2) The video was a fake AND the DNA evidence does not actually indicate a new species, or the species lived some time ago, as is commonly believed about Gigantopethicus (or however you spell it).

Again, by Occam's Razor, it's probably best to go with the second one.


Edit: Does this mean I win? Can online debates actually ever be won?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 3 2008, 4:23 am by frazz.

Skepticism != non-existence. I was skeptical the first time I heard of colossal squid... And oh look.


It can be won, and you didn't win. Disregarding what someone else says does not make you the victor. In fact, I've provided far more evidence towards the existence of possible unidentified American megafauna than you have evidence against it. (Which is limited to disregarding my evidence.) Say it's all fake? Prove it now. At least beyond any reasonable doubt. Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit

Not only have I presented several viable theories, each with physical and indirect evidence, you have not provided a single counter theory for any of it except "some on made it all up" and the legend of build foot came from nothing.

So how about you go do some research, form actual opinions, and stop being antagonistic until you can offer some real evidence any of my proof isn't worthy of you. And remember, Occam's razor is more often than not detrimental to the scientific method, and is not a form of evidence.

I posted, happy?

I acknowledged that Bigfoot may exist already.

It's awfully hard to find evidence against something that doesn't exist. "Prove to me that no pink alien lives on the other side of the universe." I can't, but I can point out that the person claiming this has no evidence for the claim. Therefore, we have no reason to believe it. Dapperdan's signature used to have a nice quote. Something like "the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, not the one denying it." That means the burden of proof falls completely on YOU. My job is to refute it. Don't read Latin, and I'm too lazy to Google right now (your post is too long), so you'll have to elaborate on that for me (if you care).

I provide no theories on the origin of Bigfoot. If a theory holds and stands up to counter evidence, I see no reason to modify it. You have not refuted my single theory, or shown it to be less plausible than the existence of Bigfoot (which should probably be your goal).

Not only have I presented several viable theories, each with physical and indirect evidence, you have not provided a single counter theory for any of it except "some on made it all up" and the legend of build foot came from nothing.

Now you're just being kind of mean. I have an opinion, and that is that Bigfoot probably doesn't exist.

Yes, please continue.

If we both have the same opinion (ie, bigfoot may exist), why are we arguing?

cause,you like to argue

Do you concur that Bigfoot probably does not exist? I've made it clear several times that this what I think. I acknowledge the potential for existence, but the lack of strong and abundant evidence leaves me with no reason to believe such a claim.

If you concur as well, then we have come to a conclusion.

Edit: I win.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 5 2008, 3:06 am by frazz.

No, I concur that there's more evidence for it than against it. And since you haven't shown ANY evidence against it, guess what? I'm right. If you disagree, please, evidence against bigfoot.

You continue to not win.

I already tried to explain, but I guess I didn't get it across. I will try to show you what you are doing by example.

If I say to you I believe in pink furry mole people who live in the moon and have a technologically advanced society, what evidence could you present against it? You could point to the apparent lack of evidence.
I could then show you a blurry grainy photo of pink people on the moon. Although I couldn't tell you exactly who took it, or in what context it was taken, or what the person who took it had to say about it, I could still assert it as evidence.
I could then ask you for evidence against the furry mole people, could you get any (I think not)?
I have now won, and go on to believe that the pink furry mole people definitely exist


What I'm trying to say here is that the burden of proof falls on the one asserting something (the pink furry mole people) exists, not on the one saying it probably doesn't (Dapperdan, if you're reading this, I want that quote please).

I did show proof, and now the burden of proof falls on you to disprove it or offer a counter proof. You have not.

You haven't given evidence or proof of pink furry mole people, so there's no burden of proof on me yet. I suggest you understand the concept behind necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit before trying to invoke it.

You have lost. Period. And now you're just digging a deeper hole.

Read the topic please. I showed that each pieces of evidence you provided can be just as easily explained with "it's a fake" as it can with "this is a new species."
Photos: Lack of context, possibly faked.
DNA: Television entertainment does not need to hold up to scientific standards. This would be better coming from a scientific source that could properly analyze the meaning.
Film: Insufficient, may have been faked. Probably best piece of evidence, but not enough. Multiple films that could be more deeply analyzed and checked for consistency would be much better.

There, I've countered all your evidence quite reasonably. You will have to admit that it is impossible to show most things to be false with 100% certainty, so we have to use our best judgment to determine which case is most likely.

Using Occam's Razor, the case that doesn't assume as much is probably the best one.

Occam's Razor is by no means a form of hard proof, but it does give us some guidance on what to believe. Given two possibilities, why believe the one that assumes so much more?


Also, I'd appreciate it if you were a little less derogatory in your posts. It's really unnecessary, I'm trying to conduct this debate as reasonably as possible.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 6 2008, 6:34 am by frazz.

Claiming things are fake without any justifiable reason is not a counter proof, or an argument. And like I said, there's even more evidence. You haven't done any research on the topic so all you're going on is saying "could be fake" to everything I post.

Well, due to the size of these creatures and the global domination humanity holds over the planet, the likelihood of them remaining unverified by science decreases as their potential population increases. Therefore, we can assume they maintain a very low population. Without expansion, however, it is only a matter of time before inbreeding sets in, recessive genetic flaws become dominant, fewer births survive, and the species goes extinct. In other words, given time, we will either discover them due to statistical probability as they expand, or they die off.

Otherwise, they're just hoaxes and inaccurate perceptions of more explainable phenomenon. Expecting people to believe in something without hard, credible proof is asking a bit much of people. Thus, the burden of proof is on the believers, not the other way around. The platypus was once thought to be fictional, so who knows, it could go either way. Time will tell, as long as there are at least some people...looking.

Thank you Hercanic.
Syphon, I've made every attempt to give you my reason. This argument is now going in circles. Hercanic seems to concur with me that YOU are the one who needs to convince ME, not the other way around.

Given the brick wall we've hit, there are two possibilities.
1) We both suck at communicating
or
2) One of us is being stupidly hard headed and not accepting the arguments of the other.

If anybody else is reading this topic, I would appreciate it if you could tell us which of these is the case, and if 2, which one of us is being stupid. I tend to think that Syphon is the one who is being hard headed and not accepting anything I say, but it could be the other way around. I would go ahead and make this claim, but I have no way of telling if I am the one being stupid. Hence the need for a third party to point it out for us.

Until then, Syphon, I will not continue to argue, since you have asked the same sort of question multiple times, and seem (from my perspective) to not be accepting my response.