Photo of Benjamin Radford
Discovery.com has a slideshow provided by Benjamin Radford, managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. The slideshow is the top 10 reasons Bigfoot is bogus.
Below I have paraphrased the top ten reasons below. You can see the the slideshow here and read in detail each of top ten reasons Benjamin Radford believes Bigfoot is bogus.
1.) The Empty Fossil Record.
2.) Forget Fossils, Where Are the Bodies?
3.) The breeding population would be tens of thousands.
4.) Most “evidence” are circumstantial eyewitness reports.
5.) Most photos are ambiguous, and even more recognizable ones can be faked.
6.) There no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot.
7.) Bird researchers, rigorous observers and exhaustive note takers, have never spotted Bigfoot.
8.) Since the Panda 100 years ago, most new species discovered are microorganisms and insects.
9.) Virtually all the evidence either comes down to being inconclusive or a hoax.
10.) Without a body there is no standard to compare evidence to.
While the Bigfoot Lunch Club would not go as far as saying Bigfoot is bogus, we agree these are all valid challenges we Bigfooters face. It is important that we recognize and embrace these challenges. As steel sharpens steel, we appreciate opposition.
Thank you Mr. Radford for keeping us on our toes, while we try to keep on the heels of Bigfoot.
Posts
Ten Reasons Radford's Reasons are Bogus:
ReplyDelete1) Fossilization is longer-shot than winning the lottery - ten times. Paleos talk about all the dinosaurs we have yet to find. It's estimated that we have evidence for 5% of the primates that have ever lived...oh, but wait. Several possible sasquatch progenitors are right there in the fossil record. We didn't have evidence of chimp and gorilla ancestors until the 21st century. The red panda's first fossil progenitor is also 21st-century...from Tennessee. Fossil records say nothing about what exists now anyway.
2) A couple of bodies have been examined...by the hunters who shot them. (So much for another assumption.) One hunter described a foot on his victim that Krantz had already speculatively diagrammed as necessary for a biped of that size and weight. Could they be tall tales? Maybe. But there's no less reason to trust than to toss them.
3) If no one believes sighters or follows up evidence, there could be tens of millions and the world wouldn't know.
4) Eyewitness reports display frequency and coherence - the only two required basics for scientifically testable evidence.
5) "Most" photos are ambiguous? Oh, so the good ones don't count? Hunh?
6) That is called "proof." There is none of that, for any species, until science confirms it.
7) Not that they've told us. They have their reps as bird researchers to think about. Why would they want to deal with Radfords? One wonders how many they saw of the mammals known to be there. One can bet, for almost all of them in almost all instances: none.
8) And the saola, a 300-pound ox we discovered after fifty years or so of continuous war denuded, um, parts of its habitat. And the kouprey, only about three or four times that size. I could keep going, for, say, an hour, but you get the idea.
9) Which means, no proof. Some people don't get how science works.
10) Ditto.
I don't think you know how science works. Science does not validate the existence of a creature for which there is zero physical evidence. Dian Fossey set out to find the mountain gorilla. She did so. You guys have been searching for this bigfoot for what, 50 years or longer? Not even a good photograph that we can all agree on? Why do you tout all the other new species that we have discovered as some validation of bigfoot? They are not. You could keep going for an hour talking about other species that have been confirmed, but at the end of that hour you still have not shown us a single shred of credible evidence for bigfoot. Those are not your victories. You have no victory. You don't have much of anything worth celebrating.
DeleteYour point #9 is most confusing of all, but I've come to recognize if there is one thing bigfootists have in common, it is the perplexing assertion that bigfoot exists because there is no evidence for bigfoot.
Bones of a 2 mil year old half human half ape were found today.
ReplyDeletewasnt the silverback gorilla discovered/documented scientifically for the 1st time in the 1950's?
ReplyDeleteWhen biologists and anthropologists set out to find a living species, they tend to find them. Bigfoot has not been found. Very likely because it does not, and probably never did exist.
DeleteExtraoridnary claims REQUIRE Extraoridnary evidence
ReplyDelete