185 replies to this topic

[Neognosis]

Dang, you have defeated me!

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 31 January 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Because he is bipedal?

LINK

Partly, but mostly because with BF supposed to be large and muscular, he'd need a lot of Calories. My opinion would be that because BF is supposed to be a traveler, he would not stay in one place too long to eat large quantities of vegetation, thus he'd only be able to eat a moderate amount and then would not have a lot of calories anyway.

Also a vegetatian BF should have a large "beer" gut, don't you think?

[DieChecker]

Neognosis, on 31 January 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

I watched another episode of "Finding Bigfoot" last night.

Two things struck me as particularly noteworthy:

1- I wish they would stop saying "squatch."

2- These people, even the "biologist," have lost touch with reality. It's extremely interesting, because you can watch the disconnect as it happens. A VERY interesting examination of the human mind and how it works. Also is quite an illumination as to how we seem to elect liars, cheats, and morons to office as well.

1 - I also hate the term "Squatch". It is hillbilly slang.

2 - I agree, there reaches a point were they break Completely with reality. There is very little objectivism, even from their Scientist/Biologist.

Neognosis, on 31 January 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

I use them when it is warranted. Like NOBODY has EVER produced ANY evidence of bigfoot EVER.

I don't believe that is true. Stuff has been found, and shown to be inconclusive. Also some evidence is still being tested. If BF is directly related to Humans, then much of the evidence collected that tested as "Human" might actually be for real.

It also depends on your definition of evidence. Pictures, stories, reports... these can be considered evidence, just not good solid evidence. If someone said they saw a zebra running loose in Nebraska, people would go look for it. Based on eyewitness testimony evidence.

[Neognosis]

Quote

I don't believe that is true. Stuff has been found, and shown to be inconclusive.

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.


Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

It also doesn't matter what you BELIEVE, what matters are the facts. You can believe whatever you choose, but there just has never been any evidence that is acceptable.

Quote

Pictures, stories, reports... these can be considered evidence,

Only if you are not using any kind of scientific litmus test. The above simply is not evidence.

If I tell you that saw a pteradactyle in my back yard this morning, and swear to it, are you going to count that as evidence that dinosaurs still roam the earth? You might, but not if you are using a scientific process.

See, the definition is not up for interpretation. And there simply is NO scientific evidence.

[DieChecker]

Neognosis, on 31 January 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.

Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

It also doesn't matter what you BELIEVE, what matters are the facts. You can believe whatever you choose, but there just has never been any evidence that is acceptable.

I'll agree there is no accepted evidence, otherwise we'd be discussing how many bigfoot there are and what range they inhabit, instead of only talking about if they exist at all.

My point with the Inconclusive evidence is that a lot of it went through the scientific process, and science did not figure out what that hair, or whatever, really was from. This is not Bobo the hillbilly saying something is inconclusive, it is Science saying it is inconclusive. Inconclusive in that it does not exactly match any known good samples. True many inconclusive results were due to not enough DNA or whatnot, but many of the results were due to their not being readily identified.

Quote

Only if you are not using any kind of scientific litmus test. The above simply is not evidence.

If I tell you that saw a pteradactyle in my back yard this morning, and swear to it, are you going to count that as evidence that dinosaurs still roam the earth? You might, but not if you are using a scientific process.

See, the definition is not up for interpretation. And there simply is NO scientific evidence.

If you said you saw it several times, it might be worth investigating based on your story. It might then be shown to be an eagle or vulture. But, the point would be that your eyewitness evidence provoked further gathering of evidence which reached a conclusion.

[Neognosis]

Quote

My point with the Inconclusive evidence is that a lot of it went through the scientific process, and science did not figure out what that hair, or whatever, really was from.

My point is that they often do later identify them, usually doll hairs, human hairs, coconut fiber, carpet fiber, etc.

But this is after the "documentary" airs, and nobody notices. Or more likely, people selectively decide to disregard.

Quote

But, the point would be that your eyewitness evidence provoked further gathering of evidence which reached a conclusion. . It might then be shown to be an eagle or vulture.

then it was never evidence at all, was it? And certainly not evidence for a pterodactyl.

[Particle Noun]

Neognosis, on 31 January 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

First off, "inconclusive" is a great word. It lets you admit that whatever samples submitted weren't identifiable, but you get to keep some of the mystery if you say "inconclusive" verses if you say "unidentifiable."

And later, most of them are found to be something else anyway.


Second, until something appears in a peer reviewed journal, the way real scientists publish their findings, it is garbage.

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly?  Or assume that because it's about bigfoot it's garbage right out of the gate?

I admit to being hopeful that the Ketchum DNA study, but we'll have to see.  What I'm pretty confident of though is that *IF* this study does indicate something interesting, there are going to be a lot of people who will dismiss it without a second thought, even though it may be peer reviewed and compelling.

It will be interesting to say the least (again, *IF*)

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 31 January 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Partly, but mostly because with BF supposed to be large and muscular, he'd need a lot of Calories. My opinion would be that because BF is supposed to be a traveler, he would not stay in one place too long to eat large quantities of vegetation, thus he'd only be able to eat a moderate amount and then would not have a lot of calories anyway.

Also a vegetatian BF should have a large "beer" gut, don't you think?

Hi Mate

Yes, he should indeed have a large beer gut, like a Gorilla, but I do not think Gorillas are sluggish, I am of the understanding that they can run at about half the speed of a human which may not be all that fast, about 20mph, but still I would think more than sluggish, and then I wonder where Deer get their energy from!

Cheers.

[evancj]

Particle Noun, on 01 February 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly?  Or assume that because it's about bigfoot it's garbage right out of the gate?

I admit to being hopeful that the Ketchum DNA study, but we'll have to see.  What I'm pretty confident of though is that *IF* this study does indicate something interesting, there are going to be a lot of people who will dismiss it without a second thought, even though it may be peer reviewed and compelling.

It will be interesting to say the least (again, *IF*)

From what I understand Ketchum is not exactly the finest example of honesty, professional integrity, or loyalty. I goggled her and came up with page after page of completes and lawsuits against her and her lab. She apparently infringed on some patents, ripped off numerous customers and backstabbed her colleagues on this bigfoot DNA project you are talking about.

I don't think I would trust her results unless she had two or three other labs independently verify her findings.

Edited by evancj, 01 February 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[Neognosis]

Quote

If DNA evidence appears in a scientific journal (a big if, but it appears that perhaps at the end of February this may happen), will you approch it openly

If it appears in a legitimate, peer reviewed scientific journal, like the journal Nature, then sure. BTW, I approach everything openly. It is only by being closed minded that you can believe in bigfoot, because you have to "close" out everything else we know about our ecosystem.

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 01 February 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Hi Mate

Yes, he should indeed have a large beer gut, like a Gorilla, but I do not think Gorillas are sluggish, I am of the understanding that they can run at about half the speed of a human which may not be all that fast, about 20mph, but still I would think more than sluggish, and then I wonder where Deer get their energy from!

Cheers.

Ahh... an Elk might be a better example, as they are also large and muscular. Elk can move really quickly when they want to, but AFAIK, they generally don't move fast or very far, unless they are forced (hunting season). Perhaps a bigfoot might pull it off by eating high cal foods like berries and nuts. But there would have to be a lot of it.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 01 February 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Ahh... an Elk might be a better example, as they are also large and muscular. Elk can move really quickly when they want to, but AFAIK, they generally don't move fast or very far, unless they are forced (hunting season). Perhaps a bigfoot might pull it off by eating high cal foods like berries and nuts. But there would have to be a lot of it.

I did think of an Elk, fast, and muscular, but it is not at all bipedal I know a Gorilla is not bipedal either, but I think you know where I am coming from there. Mostly your comment is why I briefly mentioned Deer, those things seem to have rubber bands inside of them although I have only seen them up close when in New Zealand, some are supposed to be wild in my area, but I have never seen one here.
I figure a Gorilla is closer to what is reported than an Elk. If a Gorilla can move over 20mph that seems reasonably quick for the size, and stance to me? Hardly lighting, but no sloth either.

It might be possible that nuts and berries give that strength, but I doubt that enough exist where they would go missing in NA and not be noticed? I would think more if anything that such a creature would probably be more of an insectivore where high levels of protein are required for a stealthy nutritional substance? I am more trying to anticipate debate before it happens, and I think this would be a decent case against a slow moving Omnivore? Insects are high in protein and would be hard to keep a close count on as well.

Edited by psyche101, 01 February 2012 - 04:45 AM.

[psyche101]

evancj, on 01 February 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

From what I understand Ketchum is not exactly the finest example of honesty, professional integrity, or loyalty. I goggled her and came up with page after page of completes and lawsuits against her and her lab. She apparently infringed on some patents, ripped off numerous customers and backstabbed her colleagues on this bigfoot DNA project you are talking about.

I don't think I would trust her results unless she had two or three other labs independently verify her findings.

Now that is going to make securing a peer review difficult!

[Tia]

Here's an interesting link..... Dr. Jane Goodall Speaks About Bigfoot



Now surely no one on here can deny Dr Goodall and Dianne Fossey were major links in the development of collecting data on the great apes so we should at least listen to her comments on this and maybe consider them.

[Neognosis]

Ah, the goodall nonsense.

Here's the most important quote from Goodall regarding bigfoot:

Quote

Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist.....................of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to.

goodall is also referencing something she read in a "snippet in a newspaper" somewhere.

What you should take away from that is that Jane Goodall WANTS them to exist, but can't explain why there is no body. Or any other evidence, for that matter.

Edited by Neognosis, 01 February 2012 - 04:35 PM.