Spin-off thread: Your Favorite Conspiracy Theories

What contradictory evidence? There are only conflicting accounts of his character and shadiness. Neither is evidence of Sasquatch. Buy shadiness is shadiness. We must keep it in mind. The question here is one of hoaxing.

Which logical fallacy? I am not judging the merits of the film at all. I am pointing out the astonishing unlikelihood of finding Bigfoot the first time you rent a profession camera and go looking for him. And I am pointing out just how common hoaxing is with Bigfoot claims. We have reason to be skeptical in the total lack of evidence.

Nonsense. The film is claimed to be genuine. People have written websites showing the alleged timeline problems and potential splices in it. The original film would not only be the only first-generation copy with maximum detail (conveniently lost in copying) and it would reveal any splicing that was done as well as any footage shot before and after the sighting, if any. He was supposedly to be out there filming a docudrama about an earlier Bigfoot sighting (amazing coincidence, eh?)

More claims and counter claims, no bigfoot evidence here.

OK, he is not a believer, but he is a believer. Changing his story. I am quite sure he is a believer. He offers no proof here. Only his belief that the tracks were not hoaxes. He suggests that someone like him could fake it.

Journals routinely decline to publish scientific papers with inadequate science. This is quite a condemnation of the quality of this investigation. Krantz was a good anthropologist and was published when his work was good.

Well, these are his colleagues. I tend to listen to them. I read the Meldrum article that is online. He does not claim that bigfoot exists. Be claims IF bigfoot exists he might be a descendant of gigantopithecus.

Well, as soon as it was investigated, a ton of evidence emerged including live gorillas. Such is not the case with Sasquatch or any of his worldwide mythological cousins.

 

It is takeoffs and landing that are difficult and none of them had to do that. They didn't have to perform much maneuvering at all. Most pilots say that after that much time in a professional simulator, it is completely possible for them to do it.

KSM told us that plane was supposed to hit the White House. But the White house is relatively small and hidden in big trees and the pilot could not locate it. The Pentagon is huge and impossible to miss. So he hit a target of opportunity.

Seems kind of irrelevant.

The passengers may have known but did nothing about it. Hijackings up to this point had been about securing hostages. There were only 30 minutes between the second plane hitting towers (when everyone realized it was terrorism, not an accident) and Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Maybe they didn't get the phone calls that Flight 93 did. They had a hour before they crashed.

It's a strange world. How many of these strange things withstand scrutiny?

 

And others do not contradict it all, so it is a wash, which is what I just said.

Classic evasion. You ignore that the original film would reveal any attempts at splicing and that a first generation copy might reveal details that could corroborate or discredit the film. The missing original film is highly suspicious. Who would lose a valuable artifact like that if they seriously were trying to prove their point?

No, its not good science, but you have none at all. It's an amateur sleuth's analysis of the film, but he at least documents his case. So you have nothing more tangible to dispute his evidence?

No, you have to prove me wrong and you are whiffing badly and grasping at straws. I quoted Krantz directly, "it looked to me like someone wearing a gorilla suit". Then I pointed out the inconsistencies in his quotes that you posted. Just admit that he changed his story, made conflicting statements about his beliefs, and indicates that a smart person like him could fake it.

Perhaps, you don't understand how scientific publishing works. People submit crackpot theories and pseudo science all the time. Who says it did not get reviewed? Did the journal say that? Got a source? Or is that just the embarrassed author's complaint? It really does not take much review to conclude that an article does not meet the rigorous standards of a refereed journal.

The fact that Krantz could not get his work published in a scientific journal is a huge red flag that it does not make a scientific conclusion.

Meldrum is a fine scientist whose bigfoot research is not particularly respected by his colleagues. If he ever came up with scientific proof that would all change. In the paper on tracks that he did get published, not is a refereed journal alas, he was very careful not to claim that Bigfoot exists without evidence. As I pointed out earlier, he merely notes that Gigantopithecus might make very similar tracks if there was any evidence that Gigantopithecus ever lived in North America (there is none) and if it could still be alive after 10 million years leaving not a single fossil. And there are critiques of Meldrum's conclusion's and Krantz' suggestions. Bigfoot is reported to be a swift, agile, upright walker—not a lumbering, 1,200-pound quadruped like Gigantopithecus.

http://www.hairygiants.com/2010/01/comparison-of-gigantopithecus-and.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...gantopithecus-became-extinct-16649201/?no-ist

And after thousands of years of apeman sightings no evidence like that turned up about Mountain Gorillas has emerged. As soon as they got to the remote mountains they discovered the gorilla. Nobody seems to know the right mountain for Bigfoot for no evidence exists.

If fact I can turn up no evidence whatsoever that mountain gorillas were reported for 300 years before a hunter shot one in 1902. Obviously africans had seen gorillas for millennia, but not until 1847 did a lowland gorilla skull ever confirm that the beast existed. That is about the time that European scientists first were able to get into deepest equatorial Africa. At which point they had no trouble finding evidence of them. That a subspecies existed in the remote mountains for another 55 years is not surprising. The point being that as soon as modern scientists could visit the regions where gorillas exist they immediately discovered them. Scientists have traveled all over the world going to reported Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot areas and have turned up absolutely zilch.