23 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

the L, on 09 October 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Sometimes simpliest explaination is best explaination. Who said that if those people saw Yeti that Yeti must be from this world?
Because we want to believe that missing link is still lurking around? Because our ancestors look similar aliens cant look like that?

I honestly fail to see how shoehorning ET to support a myth is the simplest explanation.
We do have quite a record of hominid development, as the Prof pointed out. I am afraid that was the best explanation, but scrutinising the record and evidence has failed to produce results.

It's just a desperate straw grab to keep the myth alive. For 60 years people have been looking for bones or anything conclusive, and have failed, and miserably. Bigfoot is bogus.

I have actually argued that aliens are likely to be similar to us. I think it is a requirement for an Industrial Revolution. But I see nothing more than desperation to support the theory of Yeti being an Alien. The Yeti is a Blue Bear. Even Tenzing Norgay eventually overcame cultural traditions to realise the Yeti is a Blue Bear.

The Yeti has been explained, some refuse to believe the explanation. That is pretty much the short and tall of it. I do not know if an unknown hominid lives in Siberia, or in PNG, both have many claims, but the Aussie Version I know is bogus, and I see many parallels in the US version. I cannot see it being real either. I have seen a very good candidate for the Pendek, to me, the best possibility remaining is very slight, but the Ebu Gogo take that crown as "most likely undiscovered hominid to exist" IMHO.

Prof Buzzkill mentioned Zana from Siberia, that is a fascinating tale, we may never see Zana remains and therefore never test them, but we did find her sons skull, and whilst is displayed unusually robust features, it was decidedly human.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

mysticwerewolf, on 09 October 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

I have heard the theory that bigfoot is actually a space traveler, i have also heard that they hop dimentions instead of planets. If they actually exist  ( and i believe they do but have no proof) either theory would explain why there are no remains found.

mysticwerewolf, on 09 October 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

I have heard the theory that bigfoot is actually a space traveler, i have also heard that they hop dimentions instead of planets. If they actually exist  ( and i believe they do but have no proof) either theory would explain why there are no remains found.

the idea that BF transcends dimensions is a belief of many of the American Indian tribes that have oral traditions of the Big Hairy Man. Also, some tribes think that BF is a shapeshifter. That is, it can change from its current form to - say, a bumble bee, on demand.

Interesting stuff

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

DBunker, on 09 October 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Yea, thats the way to go.... Explain the paranormal with the paranormal.


Yeeeeeezzzzzzzzz

My friend,,,  if everything was "explainable" there would be no mysteries to discuss, no beauty in life, and no UM!

LOL

But I do see by your SN, "Debunker", that I would consider you to be totally "real"... as it were?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

psyche101, on 09 October 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

I would say this is more likely a last desperate grab at keeping the myth alive seeming as 60 years of intensive searching has turned up nothing other than hoaxes? We have exhausted the possibilities of it being a real creature as it cannot exist under the conditions it is claimed to, nowhere to go, so next step is to look off-world. It is what humanity has always done. When something stumps us, we simply blame a higher power.

hmmm, well I would consider it people looking at *what they consider to be* - evidences.

I know that in your case, eyewitness testimony does not impress you that much. And I understand, I am not trying to be "judgmental". But other people who you may feel are a little gullible DO believe in eyewitness testimony. Hence, they stop to consider that evidence.

[psyche101]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 09 October 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

hmmm, well I would consider it people looking at *what they consider to be* - evidences.

Excellent description. People saw lightning bolts, straight like a spear. They figure, hey a God must be throwing them around, we humans sure cannot! And some would be happy to consider such a musing as "evidence". It most certainly is in the eye of the beholder. One mans evidence is another mans junk.
The ETH is repeating history here.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 09 October 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

I know that in your case, eyewitness testimony does not impress you that much. And I understand, I am not trying to be "judgmental".

From the Innocence Project:

Eyewitness Misidentification

Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing

LINK

It is notoriously unreliable, and is currently under review in many places. I hope we see an end to it as evidences altogether. It causes every bit as much harm as it does good. And that is documented.

Also, when you have a look back, many ET Claims are durations of seconds. I do not see how it is possible to determine something as extra terrestrial with these loose descriptions. That leap of faith is very common. Like the Bigfoot people that can tell you eye colour at 100 meters. As if LOL. The human eye simply cannot do that!

Even worse is hypno-therapy. That is outright implanting aliens into peoples heads.



One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was 10 years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the 10-year-old victim didnâ’t see her attacker’s face. Another report — which wasn’t introduced at trial — said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighborhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbors had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly 22 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 09 October 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

But other people who you may feel are a little gullible DO believe in eyewitness testimony. Hence, they stop to consider that evidence.

I only know of one here who holds it above all else, and I have stopped conversing with that poster. I wasted far too much time on him. I cannot abide by deliberate ignorance and I have never seen such a chronic case in my life. Hrmmzz, maybe one. Other than that, the support for eyewitness testimony seems mostly prevalent with noobs and the die hard believers. The more rations posters realise that you cannot always believe your own eyes. Eyewitness testimony is an indicator. It sometimes means "something happened" but the testimony is I find rarely accurate and usually obviously embellished.

As we found with Israel!! Jokes

With empirical evidence, no doubt remains. That should be everyone's goal. I think some see pushing these softer issues like testimony just easy, and as such are just lazy researchers who already found what they want to hear and do now want to go any further.

[HMS Dreadnought]

I thought DNA testing was used in the Zara case & she was found to be 100% human.

Imo Bigfoot is not real, there is no evidence but hearsay & that simply isn't good enough.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

psyche, I surely see what you mean about "misidentifications".

however, if misidentifications happened in 100% of the cases, they surely would be unallowed as evidenc in a court of law.

Now, take the BigFoot eyewitnesses. they too have misidentifications. But all they as a group need to do is get one of the identifications correct, and Big Foot now is a reality.

I put the chances that all BigFoot eyewitnesses are right in the same % as the number of human eyewitnesses are.
that of course means, some of them are right.

hope that makes sense. all you need is ONE to be right

[psyche101]

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 11 October 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

psyche, I surely see what you mean about "misidentifications".

however, if misidentifications happened in 100% of the cases, they surely would be unallowed as evidenc in a court of law.

They are now starting to overturn eyewitness testimony, and the entire system is under review. I am of the hope it's validity will be greatly reduced, or better yet, tossed out of the court system altogether.

Quote

For the first time in three decades, the validity of using eyewitness testimony has come under review by the Supreme Court in a case involving a New Hampshire man who was convicted of theft based on the identification by a woman who saw him from a distance in the dead of night

LINK

Earl.Of.Trumps, on 11 October 2012 - 02:50 AM, said:

Now, take the BigFoot eyewitnesses. they too have misidentifications. But all they as a group need to do is get one of the identifications correct, and Big Foot now is a reality.

I put the chances that all BigFoot eyewitnesses are right in the same % as the number of human eyewitnesses are.
that of course means, some of them are right.

hope that makes sense. all you need is ONE to be right

Good example

I beg to differ, Bigfoot is not a reality, it is a proposal.

May I take the Yowie as an example, as I live in the country where it is reported and know the legend quite well. And I agree one genuine report would make it a reality. That one genuine report needs to be proven, a skull, a pelt, something with DNA. People see them all the time. Some people will tell you they know without doubt that such exists, and where to find them, I happen to live in what these people call a "Yowie hotspot"
So do I believe these people? Why not?
Would the government cover up the existence of a Yowie? No, they would not. That makes no sense. Regardless people are seeing something right?

Basically, the Yowie is purported to be between 7-9 feet tall, covered in hair and has to be omnivorous. All the proponents agree on that.

However, our climate cannot support a hominid if that stature. Australia has at times been recorded as the hottest place on the planet, and I can supply a link if you require verification. The Hominid model does not lend itself to higher temperatures due to our structure. Many are reported in the top end as opposed to the more souther states, and the top end is cray hot. What happens with the hominid model is as we get larger, our girth being elongated to have our gut sit in our pelvis does not offer more surface area. This means bigger organs all working harder in a tighter vicinity. Out skin is the radiator which keeps these organs at a working temperature, but as we get larger, we create more volume in the gut, but not a proportionate volume of skin. As a result, we end up cooking ourselves at these higher temperatures. Meganthropus is the precedent. He was the biggest hominid to evolve, and died out for this very reason. As the Ice Age weaned off, the temps rose, and Meganthropus died out rapidly.
And this is not so much as touching on things like the organs themselves, like the heart, which also is not suited to such large sizes.

But people will tell you they have seen a Yowie face to face, when it simply cannot be. Out of all the reports, not one can possibly be correct. The heat would kill it. I can attest to that as well, we have not even hit summer, and we have already seen temps in the 30,s (Celsius) and we are only halfway through spring!!
So where does one go from there? Hundreds of reports, all of them simply have to be wrong due simply to the conditions. There is no way in hell that an 8-9 foot hairy hominid could possibly live in the wild in Australia's North End. It's just impossible. But many of these people are stand up people with good reputations and no reason to lie.
BTW, I used to be quite an avoid fanatic, Crypto drew me here to begin with. When I first moved to the "hotspot" I live in now, I can tell you I tracked every waterway, every trail, and followed any sort of report. There was not the slightest indication that any hairy man lives in my Yowie hotspot. But I did solve the Ormeau Yowie. It was a particularly nasty bunch of Hobos. Molendinar Yowie too. Another poor hobo living in the bushland behind the cement plant. All people can follow a trail and investigate like this, but the people calling these hobos Yowies were either too frightened or lazy to do so, and ran with a ridiculous story instead. Why is my UM.

[psyche101]

HMS Dreadnought, on 10 October 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

I thought DNA testing was used in the Zara case & she was found to be 100% human.

Imo Bigfoot is not real, there is no evidence but hearsay & that simply isn't good enough.

No, they never found her bones, only those of her son, Khwit.

They were 100% human. The skull looked robust, which drew some attention, but it was very much homo sapien.

[HMS Dreadnought]

psyche101, on 11 October 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

No, they never found her bones, only those of her son, Khwit.

They were 100% human. The skull looked robust, which drew some attention, but it was very much homo sapien.

Cheers mate but if he was 100% then so was she