Bigfoot photos, video, and eyewitness accounts!

[exchemist]

I responded to the second half, but not the first: yes, he does, if he wants his prosecution to go well. What he hopes he has is high credibility, expert witnesses, with verifiable evidence. Just because he sometimes presents crap, that doesn't mean that's optimal, it just means it's the best he could do. But just like you, if all they present is crap, they tend to lose.

Quite. All the defence has to do is introduce "reasonable doubt" about the evidence, in the minds of the jury.

It is the prosecution that has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that its evidence is true.

And a video that looks, frankly, like some bloke in a bear suit is not going to convince many jurors.

 

[sideshowbob]

Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked.

If a prosecutor presented a video of Bigfoot robbing a 7-11, the defense could protest that the video was faked - but everybody would still understand that it was a guy in a Bigfoot suit.

 

[spidergoat]

No I don't. I have only to provide the evidence. If you claim it is faked, it is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Just like a prosecuter doesn't have to prove his evidence isn't faked. The burden is on the defense to prove it is faked if they claim it is.

Except that the legal system has nothing to do with how science works.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Except that the legal system has nothing to do with how science works.

Well, this is a science site and scientific standards are more stringent than legal ones, but for MR to start following ANY kind if intellectual/honesty standards would be a vast improvement. Besides, the alien spaceship issue isn't exclusively in the scientific domain.

 

[Magical Realist]

Lol, no. The defense needs only to raise "reasonable doubt". They can throw out pretty much any outlandish theory they want and as long as one has even a hint of plausibility, that creates the "reasonable doubt".

You of course know all of that and you work hard (and have gotten quite good at) burden of proof shifting, but this is a reality you can't escape.

You haven't raised any reason to doubt the evidence I've posted so far. Just saying something could be faked isn't reasonable doubt either. Example: DNA evidence proves the defendent did it. But the defense claims the DNA evidence could be faked. That's not reasonable doubt.

 

[Magical Realist]

As the old adage goes, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. In the case of the these claims part of their extraordinariness within the claim is that the videos and photos are genuine. You thus need to support that claim.
You are claiming them to be genuine, right?
If you had merely claimed: "these are videos and photos purporting to be of Bigfoot" then that is not in itself an extraordinary claim, and the photos and videos would be sufficient taken as-is to support that claim of yours... the videos and photos are indeed purporting to be of Bigfoot, and thus your claim that that is what the videos are doing (purporting to be of Bigfoot) would be accepted without any/much issue.

But you don't claim that these videos are merely purporting to be of Bigfoot: you are claiming that they are genuinely of Bigfoot, or at least are likely to be of Bigfoot, i.e. that we should treat their content as genuine.

This is an extraordinary claim on your part that requires you, as part of the burden of proof, to support the notion that the videos are genuine and not merely faked in some way.

That's the way things work with regard extraordinary claims.

I'm claiming these are evidence for the existence of Bigfoot, which is what they indeed are. That's all I have to provide. The evidence. If you have a claim that it isn't evidence, then support it. On what basis do you deny the evidence? What additional facts prove it to be something else? An examination of the footage? A discounting of the photographer's credibility? Support your claim, if it indeed can be supported.

 

[Magical Realist]

If a prosecutor presented a video of Bigfoot robbing a 7-11, the defense could protest that the video was faked - but everybody would still understand that it was a guy in a Bigfoot suit.

If the prosecutor presented a video of Bigfoot at all, that's what it would be--a video of Bigfoot. The claim that it was faked would have to be supported by some evidence. That's the way it works.

 

[spidergoat]

You haven't raised any reason to doubt the evidence I've posted so far. Just saying something could be faked isn't reasonable doubt either.

You haven't presented any evidence for bigfoot. You presented anecdotal evidence for something that made strange noises.

 

[Magical Realist]

You haven't presented any evidence for bigfoot. You presented anecdotal evidence for something that made strange noises.

Along with two eyewitness accounts of the beast on that island. That's pretty good evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Along with two eyewitness accounts of the beast on that island. That's pretty good evidence.

No it's not, it's faulty evidence.

 

[Magical Realist]

POCATELLO — “Bigfoot Captured,” a documentary set to premiere on the History Channel on Monday, 11-9-15, has Idaho State University’s prints all over it.

ISU anthropology and anatomy professor Jeff Meldrum offers his insights on the program, which delves into the possibility of Bigfoot existing and uses scientific evidence to back up that claim.

But Meldrum isn’t the only one from the university with their hands on the production of the History Channel special. The Idaho State University Robotics and Communication Systems Engineering Technology program built an 8-foot-tall Bigfoot skeleton using a series of 3D printers.

“To actually stand next to it was really, really quite amazing,” Meldrum said. “Even this was a bit of an academic exercise because obviously everything is just inferential, but what it conveys is that otherwise difficult-to-imagine sensation or impression of standing next to a skeleton that’s 8 feet tall. I mean it’s huge — massive.”

Because no actual Bigfoot skeletons have been unearthed, Meldrum had to reconstruct it based on what Bigfoot researchers believe the creature is related to.

Meldrum borrowed from the physical looks of extinct animals such as the Gigantopithecus blacki — an ancient ape that was twice the size of apes today — and the Neanderthal — a species of human that is said to have became extinct 40,000 years ago.

Meldrum took the Neanderthal skeleton, and technicians from the Idaho Virtualization Laboratory on ISU’s campus — under Meldrum’s guidance — digitally manipulated the skeleton to reflect the Bigfoot captured in the famous Patterson-Gimlin film.

“They made the shoulders much broader, the torso thicker, the arms longer, the legs the right proportion,” Meldrum said. “Then we took the Neanderthal skull away because it’s more human-like.”

So what did Meldrum and his team replace for the Bigfoot skeleton’s skull? They borrowed that from the likes of the Paranthropus boisei, an ape-like creature that roamed eastern Africa until about 1.2 million years ago. That skull is robust, wide, and it fit the look Meldrum was going for.

“We came up with a pretty interesting model, one that agreed with the creature that was depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film,” Meldrum said.

Following the digital model’s completion, on it went to be printed, which proved not to be a straightforward task. A 3-D printer works by feeding a type of plastic twine into a head. The head heats the plastic and spits it out, similar to a hot-glue gun. The head is assigned X-Y coordinates and lays down layers of the plastic, which harden. When the head finishes one plane, it begins on another.

Garen Call is an assistant in ISU’s robotics and communications program, and the History Channel contacted him to help undertake the project..."====http://www.idahostatejournal.com/me...cle_14d0b75e-85fc-11e5-94cb-a3512597bfc6.html

 

[Daecon]

So they pull a design out of their ass and say "this is bigfoot and this made-up skeleton proves it"?

Pathetic.

 

[Magical Realist]

So they pull a design out of their ass and say "this is bigfoot and this made-up skeleton proves it"?

Pathetic.

 

[exchemist]

Any video or photo can be faked. But it doesn't make videos and photos unreliable. That's why we rely on them heavily as evidence. Because they ARE videos and photos.

Nobody, I mean, nobody, relies on videos from YouTube as evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Isn't that the dude who ADMITTED it was a hoax?

 

[sideshowbob]

If the prosecutor presented a video of Bigfoot at all, that's what it would be--a video of Bigfoot. The claim that it was faked would have to be supported by some evidence. That's the way it works.

No, that isn't the way it works. As I said, the court would assume that it was a guy in a Bigfoot suit. That's the default position. We know there are guys in Bigfoot suits; we DON'T know whether there are real Bigfeet. Until there is real evidence of Bigfeet, videos and eyewitness accounts are worthless.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You haven't raised any reason to doubt the evidence I've posted so far.

You've already provided all the reasonable doubt needed, MR. You've acknowledged:
1. Videos and photos can be faked.
2. The event being recorded can be faked or have another more reasonable explanation
3. The videos you've provided are on Youtube and therefore not original and inherrently impossible to verify source, equipment, editing, etc because all of that information is stripped in the process of posting it to Youtube.

All of that is plenty for reasonable doubt.

Example: DNA evidence proves the defendent did it. But the defense claims the DNA evidence could be faked. That's not reasonable doubt.

That's not reasonable doubt for DNA because everyone knows DNA evidence is reliable. But it is reasonable doubt for a Youtube video because everyone - including you - knows it is inherrently unreliable (both the video and the content). MR, You have to know what you are saying is stupid. You're not a spectacularly gullible and irrational idiot. Stop pretending to be.

If the prosecutor presented a video of Bigfoot at all, that's what it would be--a video of Bigfoot. The claim that it was faked would have to be supported by some evidence. That's the way it works.

Anyone who has ever watched a detective show (Law and Order?) or legal movie (A Few Good Men?) knows that isn't how it works. C'mon, MR, you're not that stupid - stop pretending to be.

 

[Magical Realist]

That's not reasonable doubt for DNA because everyone knows DNA evidence is reliable. But it is reasonable doubt for a Youtube video because everyone - including you - knows it is inherrently unreliable (both the video and the content).

No..just because videos are posted on Youtube doesn't make them unreliable. I can watch any number of reliable videos from that source at any time. Historical videos. News videos. Science videos. The claim that because something is on Youtube therefore it must be fake is a copout and you know it.

1. Videos and photos can be faked.
2. The event being recorded can be faked or have another more reasonable explanation

As I've already pointed out, any evidence can be faked. DNA evidence. Fingerprints. Footprints. But that doesn't make that evidence unreliable. The evidence remains evidence UNTIL it is proven to be faked. Just saying it could be faked isn't reasonable doubt. It isn't anything.

 

[spidergoat]

No..just because videos are posted on Youtube doesn't make them unreliable. I can watch any number of reliable videos from that source at any time. Historical videos. News videos. Science videos. The claim that because something is on Youtube therefore it must be fake is a copout and you know it.

Post one incident so we can analyze it. We can't possibly be expected to debunk them all at once, that's an unreasonable debate tactic called the Gish Gallop. You are trying to overwhelm the forum with a large quantity of bad evidence thinking it adds up to good evidence, but it doesn't work that way. Bigfoot is a cultural icon now, and plenty of people fool around with the idea.

 

[Magical Realist]

Post one incident so we can analyze it. We can't possibly be expected to debunk them all at once, that's an unreasonable debate tactic called the Gish Gallop. You are trying to overwhelm the forum with a large quantity of bad evidence thinking it adds up to good evidence, but it doesn't work that way. Bigfoot is a cultural icon now, and plenty of people fool around with the idea.

This thread has been active for 2 years now. In that time nobody has given me any reason to doubt the veracity of the videos, audios, or reports. Don't complain about there being too many encounters and then ask for another one. Why would one more make a difference? I WILL refer you to the soccer playing teens on that island seeing a Bigfoot walking past the gym. That's pretty strong evidence there.