Why has the Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film never been exactly duplicated?

[turbo]

Don't get me wrong - I'd be thrilled to find out that there is a North American great ape. The naturalist in me makes me extremely skeptical, however. You mention the Cranston fellow from Oregon. If he was a real expert, he was in the perfect locale to find tracks. Frequent rains = mud and soft soil. Snows in the mountains. Sand and granular alluvial deposits along riverbanks. It is impossible for a large animal to walk on such surfaces and not leave tracks. In addition the tracks would not be static one-size-fits-all things, but would vary based on the softness of the surface, the gait of the creature, the weight (if it were carrying something), and the age of the creature. If there are adult Sasquatches, it is reasonable to assume that there are babies and adolescents, as well. Primates are slow to mature, and family groups are required to provide the training, support and protection necessary to allow them to mature to adults. Unless the females always stay at home with the little ones while the males forage, tracks should appear in groups and in various sizes. The complexity of the evidence that animals leave in their environment can be stunning, and I don't see that complexity in the claims of the Bigfoot believers.

 

[wvbig]

Note that I edited a bit late [but before you posted ] to say "debunkers", not "skeptics". It is fine to say that it doesn't stand as scientific evidence for anything, but to claim for a fact that it is a hoax is another matter. So this does not hold all of science responsible. But when people write books and talk on TV and make money by calling other people liars, they are required to back up their claim as possible.

Note that they are not just rejecting the film as evidence, they are claiming a specific explanation - that it was hoaxed. So really anyone who states this as a fact has the burden of proof.

Maybe it was malformed bipedal bear.

Thank you! I've been trying to get people on other scientific forums to understand this

 

[wvbig]

It is really pushing credulity to claim that Bigfoot exists when every Tom, Dick, and Harry these days seem to be carrying cell phones with built-in cameras or nice compact digital cameras on their hikes and hunting and fishing trips. Amateur and pro photographers have always hit the back-country with cameras, but there's a whole new generation of people who cannot be separated from their cell phones, and many of those phones are capable of producing some really nice images. And it's no rare thing to meet up with some people on a trail and see them whip out some little pocket-sized digital camera and snap a shot or two.

There is no camera phone capable of taking a photo with the necessary resolution needed to stand up to the degree of enlargement needed to detect telltale signs of a costume, such as zippers, snaps, etc... Most people do carry digital cameras with them during walks on nature trails, but the majority of people still have cameras in the 2-3 megapixel range. Not nearly high enough resolution. The good news is the price of digital cameras is coming down. So hopefully most people will soon be able to afford cameras with 10 megapixel or higher resolution. But other points that people need to consider when making this argument against the existence of Bigfoot are: 1)Most people buy autofocus cameras & they simply can't be trusted to consistently produce razor sharp images because they are dependent on adequate levels of light. 2) Most untrained people use the auto setting on their cameras & with them, the auto system sets the aperture to allow as much light as possible & this sometimes doesn't give adequate depth of field or results in longer exposure times. & 3)When people see a Bigfoot, they are usually surprised & often frightened. This results in trembling hands. So in my opinion, this is a weak argument against the existence of Bigfoot.

 

[hvs]

... So in my opinion, this is a weak argument against the existence of Bigfoot.

And yet people are perfectly capable of filming/photographing every other form of wildlife? Yes, there are species that are still being discovered (birds in the Amazon, frogs in Australia), but for such a large creature to be so elusive for so long with no hard evidence strains credulity.

 

[wvbig]

And yet people are perfectly capable of filming/photographing every other form of wildlife? Yes, there are species that are still being discovered (birds in the Amazon, frogs in Australia), but for such a large creature to be so elusive for so long with no hard evidence strains credulity.

How many high quality (10MP or higher, razor sharp, well lighted, proper depth of field) photos of wildlife have you seen taken by people who weren't anticipating seeing the subjects of their photos? I haven't seen any.

 

[hvs]

How many high quality (10MP or higher, razor sharp, well lighted, proper depth of field) photos of wildlife have you seen taken by people who weren't anticipating seeing the subjects of their photos? I haven't seen any.

I have seen photographs of deer, bear, and elk from hikers that were very good. Hikers are often not "anticipating seeing the subjects" as they simply happen upon them. Actually, the only significantly blurry images I ever seem to see are ones related to cryptozoology.

On a side note: DO NOT search for "bears amateur photography" in Google images without an appropriate Safe Search filter.

 

[wvbig]

I have seen photographs of deer, bear, and elk from hikers that were very good. Hikers are often not "anticipating seeing the subjects" as they simply happen upon them. Actually, the only significantly blurry images I ever seem to see are ones related to cryptozoology.

On a side note: DO NOT search for "bears amateur photography" in Google images without an appropriate Safe Search filter.

But were they taken with a camera with 10MP or higher resolution? If you're in an area where you know there are deer, bears, elk, etc... you are never as surprised to see one of those as you would be to see something that isn't suppose to exist. You also have to remember that a photo may look sharp in standard size. But once you enlarge it several times, it gets blurry. At least too blurry to see zippers, snaps, etc... I know what I'm talking about because I'm a 1997 graduate of the New York Institute of Photography. The clearest high resolution still photo in the world will never prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot because you can't tell how it walks or if there is any movement in the hands. Without hand movement, you can't rule out a costume with arm extensions to achieve the long arms a Bigfoot is suppose to have.

 

[hvs]

But were they taken with a camera with 10MP or higher resolution? If you're in an area where you know there are deer, bears, elk, etc... you are never as surprised to see one of those as you would be to see something that isn't suppose to exist. You also have to remember that a photo may look sharp in standard size. But once you enlarge it several times, it gets blurry. At least too blurry to see zippers, snaps, etc... I know what I'm talking about because I'm a 1997 graduate of the New York Institute of Photography. The clearest high resolution still photo in the world will never prove or disprove the existence of Bigfoot because you can't tell how it walks or if there is any movement in the hands. Without hand movement, you can't rule out a costume with arm extensions to achieve the long arms a Bigfoot is suppose to have.

I'm well aware of the limitations of digital photography, but I'm saying that there's a wide spectrum of quality between a 10MP image and the blurry garbage that certain groups pass off as "evidence". I also agree that photographic evidence will not be conclusive, but a decent photograph of an animal's face can go a long way towards determining whether or not it is a fake.

 

[vociferous]

I realize I am joining the subject pretty late, but I would just like to point out the principle of Occam's razor.

There are two explanations, both of which could be true.

One possibility is that this is actual footage of an undiscovered creature which has never left an actual shred of physical evidence behind that would be unique to its existence (like a body).

The other is that this is one of many proven hoaxes relying on some guy dressed up in a costume.

Occam's razor is clearly going to go with the explanation that does not require the existence of a major species of unknown primate.

Obviously, there is no way to conclusively show that the video was faked, unless the hoaxers or those parties involved would come forward, but a faked video is the more logical explanation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, a similar video could be made to show that it could have been faked. There is no need for Occams razor when a claim can be tested.

In particular, I am thinking of the family member or friend who produced the monkey suit [in association with a book deal]. Could this be the suit seen in the film; assuming that it was in fact a man in a monkey suit?

Occams razor is a great rule of thumb, but nothing more.

 

[vociferous]

However, a similar video could be made to show that it could have been faked. There is no need for Occams razor when a claim can be tested.

In particular, I am thinking of the family member or friend who produced the monkey suit [in association with a book deal]. Could this be the suit seen in the film; assuming that it was in fact a man in a monkey suit?

A few points, I do not believe that it is even necessary to create a similar video to show it could have been faked, because the level of special effects and costumes in film at that point in history were a lot more sophisticated, so one can safely assume that if someone were really interested in making a duplicate, it could be done.

Despite that fact, it is also pretty irrelevant, as logic dictates that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim. Since Occam's razor dictates that a human charlatan is a more likely explanation than an undiscovered major primate, one must assume that the video is a fake unless some more credible evidence can be presented that would elevate the claim that this is an actual footage of said "bigfoot" rather than a human in a costume on grainy film.

So, we must arrive at the conclusion that until "bigfoot" proponents can provide evidence that would raise the level of credibility of the existence of "bigfoot" from an unsubstantiated claim to a demonstrably true fact, that the explanation of fraud is always going to be the more likely choice.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A few points, I do not believe that it is even necessary to create a similar video to show it could have been faked, because the level of special effects and costumes in film at that point in history were a lot more sophisticated, so one can safely assume that if someone were really interested in making a duplicate, it could be done.

Not necessarily. For example, there are people [scientists, experts in human and primate motion and anatomy] who examined the film who say that it was not a human in a suit. Others disagree.

Despite that fact, it is also pretty irrelevant, as logic dictates that the onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

Okay then, prove it was man in a suit. Or at least prove that it could have been.

Since Occam's razor dictates that a human charlatan is a more likely explanation than an undiscovered major primate, one must assume that the video is a fake unless some more credible evidence can be presented that would elevate the claim that this is an actual footage of said "bigfoot" rather than a human in a costume on grainy film.

That might make you feel better, but it proves nothing.

So, we must arrive at the conclusion that until "bigfoot" proponents can provide evidence that would raise the level of credibility of the existence of "bigfoot" from an unsubstantiated claim to a demonstrably true fact, that the explanation of fraud is always going to be the more likely choice.

Maybe more likely, but that proves nothing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Don't forget: A man has produced what he says is THE suit used in the film. This is easy enough to test, and it is a specific claim, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics and claimant who promote this explanation.

I would add that since the world's foremost expert on large apes - Jane Goodall - thinks that bigfoot might exist, I find it difficult to dismiss all claims based on a rule of thumb.

 

[vociferous]

Not necessarily. For example, there are people [scientists, experts in human and primate motion and anatomy] who examined the film who say that it was not a human in a suit. Others disagree.

There are physicists who believe that UFO's are visitors from alternate diminsions and biologists who believe in creationism. Just because you can find a handful of people with credible education does not mean that their opinion is credible or represents anything but a very small fringe group. I would be seriously dubious of anyone who makes the claim that a human in a suit is not a credible explanation based on a few seconds of grainy footage, even if they were experts in their field.

Okay then, prove it was man in a suit. Or at least prove that it could have been.

I feel that the existence of costume shops and Hollywood is more than enough evidence, by itself, that it could have been a man in a suit.

Here is a question. How many new 200lb+ species of mammals (not slight variations on other North American species, but something genuinely novel) have been discovered in North America in the last fifty years?

When was the last time such a new species was discovered? What is the likelihood that such a creature could exist in numbers necessary for a breeding population without a single shred of verifiably genuine evidence being discovered?

When bigfoot supporters have something better than grainy footage and easily faked foot castings, I will give their very unlikely hypothesis another look.

 

[vociferous]

Don't forget: A man has produced what he says is THE suit used in the film. This is easy enough to test, and it is a specific claim, so the burden of proof is on the skeptics and claimant who promote this explanation.

I would add that since the world's foremost expert on large apes - Jane Goodall - thinks that bigfoot might exist, I find it difficult to dismiss all claims based on a rule of thumb.

That is a logical fallacy; shifting the burden of proof.

Furthermore, based on the transcripts of what she said, it is really hard to tell whether she is asserting whether she actually literally believes that they exist or is just hoping that they do.

Furthermore, just because one expert makes some kind of ambiguously worded statement that could be construed as her endorsing such a notion does not believe that she is stating, that in her expert opinion, she believes that the evidence strongly supports such a claim.

Albert Einstein, certainly one of the greatest experts in theoretical physics ever, if not the greatest, said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," believing that many of the theories of quantum mechanics were false. Just because you are an expert does not mean that you have the right answer.

 

[CEL]

That is a logical fallacy; shifting the burden of proof.

Furthermore, based on the transcripts of what she said, it is really hard to tell whether she is asserting whether she actually literally believes that they exist or is just hoping that they do.

Furthermore, just because one expert makes some kind of ambiguously worded statement that could be construed as her endorsing such a notion does not believe that she is stating, that in her expert opinion, she believes that the evidence strongly supports such a claim.

Albert Einstein, certainly one of the greatest experts in theoretical physics ever, if not the greatest, said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," believing that many of the theories of quantum mechanics were false. Just because you are an expert does not mean that you have the right answer.

I agree. Carl Sagan believed that extraterrestrial life exists, but that is not the same as saying that he believed that ET's are visiting us.

 

[gmax137]

Hey take a look a this one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyxJFXIzAEY&feature=related

the point here is that this video has (when I looked) 2157 comments. The "ohh ohh real" videos have like 20 or 40 comments - this one has over 2000. Now I didnt read them all, but the ones I did read were at least 10 to 1 in understanding that video is crap evidence. Ironically, they make this clear by saying "Oh wow now I believe." This is good news, (most) people know that a good hoax is good for a few laughs, but that's it.

Someone up above said that photographic evidence is reaally strong evidence. Anyone who has ever developed & printed a coupla rolls of film knows that is absolute tripe, and that was before digital and photoshop (which can make fantasy reality in short time).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are physicists who believe that UFO's are visitors from alternate diminsions and biologists who believe in creationism. Just because you can find a handful of people with credible education does not mean that their opinion is credible or represents anything but a very small fringe group. I would be seriously dubious of anyone who makes the claim that a human in a suit is not a credible explanation based on a few seconds of grainy footage, even if they were experts in their field.

Sure, you are free to ignore any opinions that you wish, but it doesn't make any predisposed disbelief any more defensible. It only means that one has already made up their mind and is not willing to consider any other positions in spite of what any qualifed experts have to say.

I feel that the existence of costume shops and Hollywood is more than enough evidence, by itself, that it could have been a man in a suit.

That proves that there are monkey suits that could be used to fake films. But we are talking about a specific case here. There are specific claims that would have to be answered. Can we really see muscles flexing, or can the suit produced duplicate this effect? Is the bipedal motion and movement seen something that humans can reproduce? Can we account for the length of the arms? I don't know, but some people claims these as compelling details.

Here is a question. How many new 200lb+ species of mammals (not slight variations on other North American species, but something genuinely novel) have been discovered in North America in the last fifty years?

Frankly, I don't care. It has nothing to do with the claims made. If credible people who are experts, like Goodall, think that it might be possible, then I'm not going to presume to be an expert who can say otherwise. Do you?

When was the last time such a new species was discovered? What is the likelihood that such a creature could exist in numbers necessary for a breeding population without a single shred of verifiably genuine evidence being discovered?

New species are discovered every day.

When bigfoot supporters have something better than grainy footage and easily faked foot castings, I will give their very unlikely hypothesis another look.

Sure, I'm not arguing that bigfoot exists. I'm arguing that there still seems to be a crack in the door. There are enough serious people who believe in this stuff that to dismiss it outright as nonsense becomes a leap of faith - it is to say that they are all nuts and I know better. I don't know, or, I haven't seen any convincing evidence so I remain skeptical, or I don't think so but am willing to consider the evidence, is always a great answer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is a logical fallacy; shifting the burden of proof.

Incorrect. The burden of proof was shifted when the specific claim was made that film A was made using a man in suit B. That is a claim that can be tested.

Furthermore, based on the transcripts of what she said, it is really hard to tell whether she is asserting whether she actually literally believes that they exist or is just hoping that they do.

My quote was that she thinks they might exist. She clearly leaves the door open, and at the least it is arguable no one is more qualifed to comment on this subject. So this isn't like we have some fringe faction, we are talking about the worlds leading expert on great apes.

Furthermore, just because one expert makes some kind of ambiguously worded statement that could be construed as her endorsing such a notion does not believe that she is stating, that in her expert opinion, she believes that the evidence strongly supports such a claim.

I didn't say that. You seem to have trouble keeping your facts straight.

Albert Einstein, certainly one of the greatest experts in theoretical physics ever, if not the greatest, said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," believing that many of the theories of quantum mechanics were false. Just because you are an expert does not mean that you have the right answer.

And you aren't even an expert, so perhaps you should learn to reserve judgment.

 

[russ_watters]

My quote was that she thinks they might exist. She clearly leaves the door open, and at the least it is arguable no one is more qualifed to comment on this subject. So this isn't like we have some fringe faction, we are talking about the worlds leading expert on great apes.

But of course that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether this case is real or not. It's just a meaningless appeal to authority - an authority that has nothing at all to say about the subject!

Incorrect. The burden of proof was shifted when the specific claim was made that film A was made using a man in suit B. That is a claim that can be tested.

No, Ivan. Everyone making a positive assertion is accountable for their own claim. So when someone asserts that the video is a fake, that doesn't shift the burden of proof (absolving the initial claimant of the burden), it adds a completely separate burden of proof on the new claim.

And both of the above are good examples of typical diversions from the still critical fact: the authenticity of this video cannot be verified. The burden of proof of the initial claimant has not been met.

 

[vociferous]

Incorrect. The burden of proof was shifted when the specific claim was made that film A was made using a man in suit B. That is a claim that can be tested.

No, that film was making its own thesis, which is, "I can make a fake Bigfoot film too." The film's ability to prove or disprove its own theses does not shift the burden of proof; that would be illogical.

My quote was that she thinks they might exist. She clearly leaves the door open, and at the least it is arguable no one is more qualified to comment on this subject. So this isn't like we have some fringe faction, we are talking about the worlds leading expert on great apes.

I think that Aliens might be abducting rednecks and that bigfeet might be roaming the Northwest. I do not think that anyone is making the claim that the existence of Bigfoot violates our basic understanding of anything, just that it is a pretty dubious prospect based on the evidence.

As for Goodall, I am sure she is the most famous ape expert on the planet. I really do not know if she is the "world's leading expert," on apes though I suspect that she could probably defend the title of world's foremost expert on Chimpanzee behavior.

And you aren't even an expert, so perhaps you should learn to reserve judgment.

What I do know is that there are very few legitimate scientists (not self-proclaimed Bigfoot researchers) that actually devote significant time into doing "Bigfoot research" and that they are considered to be a fringe group by their peers.

I think, based on the evidence, 150 years ago it might be reasonable to assume that the existence of Bigfoot was a reasonable proposition. After all, Gorillas were a rumor and it took Europeans quite a while to find them. But, with the amount of people, exploration, and development in these areas it seems very unlikely that such a large primate could exist without a single solitary shred of convincing evidence, not even so much as a fossil, to tell of its existence and evolution.

Even in a place as remote as the deep Amazon, I think this would be unlikely, and most certainly in the Pacific Northwest.

 

[Einstein Mcfly]

Has anyone stopped to define exactly what level of "reproduction" of the 1967 film is needed to PROVE that it could be hoaxed? What are the components of a legitimate reproduction? I suspect that the only way to get believers in the 1967 film to come around would be if someone came forward with another authentic looking video that convinced them (the believers) that it was real and then showed them later how they made the hoax. But they could then STILL claim that the 1967 film wasn't made with the modern techniques used on the "new" hoax and that creating a hoax nowadays has no bearing on if it was done in 1967.

I really don't see any way to prove to those who believe that it was a hoax. If I'm incorrect here, please tell me what would constitute absolute proof that the 1967 film could be a hoax.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But of course that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether this case is real or not. It's just a meaningless appeal to authority - an authority that has nothing at all to say about the subject!

Sure she does. Part of the question is whether it is even possible for such an animal to exist. This gets into practical matters perfectly suited for an expert on large apes. If you wish to play amateur biologist, go ahead, but I don't pretend to be an expert when I'm not, so I'll defer to Goodall.

An appeal to authority is often preferable to amateur science and crackpottery.

No, Ivan. Everyone making a positive assertion is accountable for their own claim. So when someone asserts that the video is a fake, that doesn't shift the burden of proof (absolving the initial claimant of the burden), it adds a completely separate burden of proof on the new claim.

Fair enough. Of course there is no way to prove that a film wasn't faked - there is no measure for authenticity - so there is no burden of proof in this regard. However, the only arguments for credibility that I've heard are in regards to motion, stride, proportions, etc, so if the skeptics argue that these can be faked, the burden of proof is on them. So either way the burden of proof is on the skeptics [actually, I should say the debunkers, not the skeptics. Heck, I'm a skeptic.].

And both of the above are good examples of typical diversions from the still critical fact: the authenticity of this video cannot be verified. The burden of proof of the initial claimant has not been met.

What proof would you accept? There is no burden of proof in the affirmative. It can't be proven; it can't be falsified; but it could be shown that it could have been faked, if it was faked.

Where's is the proof?

 

[CEL]

Has anyone stopped to define exactly what level of "reproduction" of the 1967 film is needed to PROVE that it could be hoaxed? What are the components of a legitimate reproduction? I suspect that the only way to get believers in the 1967 film to come around would be if someone came forward with another authentic looking video that convinced them (the believers) that it was real and then showed them later how they made the hoax. But they could then STILL claim that the 1967 film wasn't made with the modern techniques used on the "new" hoax and that creating a hoax nowadays has no bearing on if it was done in 1967.

I really don't see any way to prove to those who believe that it was a hoax. If I'm incorrect here, please tell me what would constitute absolute proof that the 1967 film could be a hoax.

The only way to prove it is a hoax is if one of the filmmakers came to public and confess.
Even if you could make a similar film using only technology existent in 1967, the only thing you would prove is that your film is fake, not the original one. Of course, this would eliminate one of the arguments of the believers: that the film could not be faked, but not dismiss it.

 

[vociferous]

If you look at it historically, people like James Randi have "faked" believers in these type of thing before. The fact that they were duped so easily does not change many of their minds.

Like, the Britons who originally started making crop circles came forward and said it was all a hoax, and showed the media how they did it, and their stories check out, but it is not making too many believers think, "hey, if we were so easily fooled by these guys, I wonder if these new crop circles are similar fakes?"

 

[LightbulbSun]

There are enough serious people who believe in this stuff that to dismiss it outright as nonsense becomes a leap of faith - it is to say that they are all nuts and I know better.

There are enough serious people who believe in God. Does that mean dismissing the existence of God with 99.99999999999999999% certainty is a leap of faith? Stop being an apologist.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Occams razor is a great rule of thumb, but nothing more.

I don't think you understand Occams Razor.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html"

The big foot believers are the ones "unnecessarily multiplying entities."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think you understand Occams Razor.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html"

The big foot believers are the ones "unnecessarily multiplying entities."

Actually, the invocation of Occams Razor is well known to be fallacious. We aren't multiplying unnecessarily. We aren't working with unnecessary variables in an equation. It is suggested that we rule out evidence based on faith. And you have posted nothing to refute that it is just a rule of thumb, which it is.

The improper application of Occams Razor verges on blatant crackpottery. It is not a scientific test. It is a guide. At most, given the most liberal interpretion, it suggests that we would expect to find that all evidence of bigfoot is hoaxed. But that doesn't mean that OR in itself stands as evidence for a hoax.

There are enough serious people who believe in God. Does that mean dismissing the existence of God with 99.99999999999999999% certainty is a leap of faith? Stop being an apologist.

I have never seen an alleged film of God. And, btw, science has nothing to say about a God except that we have no known evidence for one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is one of the scientists [now deceased] who argued that the film is genuine. His work and papers are referenced.
http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/grover_kranz.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is very telling that the notion of "maybe" should cause so much consternation. And I'm just basing my opinion on those of people who are qualified to have one. It is clear to me that I am arguing against faith based beliefs.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Actually, the invocation of Occams Razor is well known to be fallacious. We aren't multiplying unnecessarily. We aren't working with unnecessary variables in an equation. It is suggested that we rule out evidence based on faith. And you have posted nothing to refute that it is just a rule of thumb, which it is.

The improper application of Occams Razor verges on blatant crackpottery. It is not a scientific test. It is a guide. At most, given the most liberal interpretion, it suggests that we would expect to find that all evidence of bigfoot is hoaxed. But that doesn't mean that OR in itself stands as evidence for a hoax.

It is a pretty sound rule of thumb. You shouldn't assume too much without proper evidence.

I have never seen an alleged film of God. And, btw, science has nothing to say about a God except that we have no known evidence for one.

By the way, science has nothing to say about a flying spaghetti monster, Zeus, teapots orbiting the Sun, Santa Claus etc. except that we have no known evidence for one.

It is very telling that the notion of "maybe" should cause so much consternation. And I'm just basing my opinion on those of people who are qualified to have one. It is clear to me that I am arguing against faith based beliefs.

Just because someone claims something whether it'd be a scientist or a lay person doesn't give that idea any more credence. It's called appealing to authority and it's a logical fallacy. This is why science has the peer reviewed process.