[DieChecker]

Neognosis, on 03 November 2009 - 05:59 PM, said:

I"m sorry, Diechecker, it's not a matter of my acceptance or not. It's about what evidence is and is not. there is no opinion involved.

But logically there is opinion in what constitutes evidence. I've posted the definition from scientific sites several times over the years, and it includes eyewitness reports and other unconfirmed data, such as hair. Someday what is un-identified now may be critical evidence. Blood taken in the 1960s as police evidence is now used for DNA typing and has freed several conviced killers. Does the fact it was useless in the 1960s mean it was not evidence? No. It just means it can not be meaningfully analyised right now. Even if the hair belongs to a goat, elk, or bear, it is evidence... of hoaxing, if nothing else. But, it is evidenece.

psyche101, on 03 November 2009 - 06:12 PM, said:

?
Minimum Viable Population is usually estimated as the population size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95 percent probability of survival between 100 to 1000 years into the future. The turning point for the average vertebrate is approximately 4,000 when inbreeding or genetic variability is taken into account and not allowing for natural disasters.

It is a standard scientific model. Using estimated values does not make the concept less viable, or not applicable to certain species.

And yet you admit it is 90 to 95% effective. Not 100%, so it is still speculative. 10% is a lot of room for error.

If I was to find an Expert that said a population could be less then 4000, then what would you do? Discount him as an expert? Or, ignore the point? Or simply point out he is one in thousands? So there is no point to my looking for one now is there?

Quote

When you say a limited range - you mean like a populated landmass?

I was refering to the size of a environmental study, such as the creek and minnows, or the Counting of Snails we talked about before.

Quote

Then how do we know we have...

100 Iberian lynx left (it would be the first big cat species to do so since the Smilodon went extinct 10,000 years ago.)

322 condors known to be living, including 172 in the wild (pretty definitive wouldn't you say?)

Leadbeater's possum population is around 2000

the La Gomera Giant Lizard consists of 90 individuals remaining in the wild, and a captive stock of about 44 animals. This species is now only known from two separate inaccessible cliffs 2 km apart, close to the Valle Gran Rey.

Ah. Those are just the ones we know about. Who is to say that there are not 10 or 15 more Iberian Lynx? Have they used nets on every meter of their former range? I do not think so, but I could be wrong.

And words like "around" and "known" are not very definative now are they. Words like that imply that we do not really know, we are only guessing.

psyche101, on 03 November 2009 - 06:27 PM, said:

Perhaps it might be prudent to put forth what you regard as a scientific point and go from there.

Neognosis, on 03 November 2009 - 06:57 PM, said:

yes, please put forth some scientific principle or piece of "evidence" and we will discuss why it is not so.

There is no point to it, as you have already been presented in numerous threads with various good evidences, that hint at something, but do not proove anything. To go back and list them all would be the work of hours, and since they will be casually dismissed, or shown to be unscientifically gathered, I will not bother at this time.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

But logically there is opinion in what constitutes evidence. I've posted the definition from scientific sites several times over the years, and it includes eyewitness reports and other unconfirmed data, such as hair. Someday what is un-identified now may be critical evidence. Blood taken in the 1960s as police evidence is now used for DNA typing and has freed several conviced killers. Does the fact it was useless in the 1960s mean it was not evidence? No. It just means it can not be meaningfully analyised right now. Even if the hair belongs to a goat, elk, or bear, it is evidence... of hoaxing, if nothing else. But, it is evidenece.


And yet you admit it is 90 to 95% effective. Not 100%, so it is still speculative. 10% is a lot of room for error.

You are discounting evolution.

The Bili Ape was identified as a fifth sub species of Chimpanzee from a scat sample.

Every single report that is associated with Biff makes him allegedly a primate right?

Every primate on this earth is from a common ancestor and therefore offers recognizable genetic markers.

There is more than enough scat and hair samples to have determined this. Only one should be needed. Even Mak had an alleged Sasquatch hair.

The claims of "inconclusive" and so forth are obvious lies. There cannot be so many samples of a creature that is related to us yet elude us genetically. That just is not a possible.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

If I was to find an Expert that said a population could be less then 4000, then what would you do? Discount him as an expert? Or, ignore the point? Or simply point out he is one in thousands? So there is no point to my looking for one now is there?

I would love to see something like this. The only way he could circumvent MVP is with fiction. If he had a valid case, how could I tear that down? I even championed Jeff Meldrum there for a while... until I read of his faith in Henner. That shows me he is willing to grasp straws and has left reality behind.

Empirical evidence cannot be discounted now can it. Show me the money.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

I was refering to the size of a environmental study, such as the creek and minnows, or the Counting of Snails we talked about before.

Just so I do not convolute the post too much, I will address this point (touched on in the first phrase as well) below.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

Ah. Those are just the ones we know about. Who is to say that there are not 10 or 15 more Iberian Lynx? Have they used nets on every meter of their former range? I do not think so, but I could be wrong.

And words like "around" and "known" are not very definative now are they. Words like that imply that we do not really know, we are only guessing.

Guessing?

172 Condors seems a pretty accurate guess, wouldn't you say?

10 or 15 does not a population make. Certainly not one claimed to be a minimum of ten thousand years old.

What you are saying here is that you believe the anecdotes and conclusions of the likes of the BFRO over empirical studies by teams of people who train their whole lives to understand everything there is to know about animals.

And that these people do not really do their job, they just throw some darts at a board.

You are grasping now Diechecker. You are telling us to discount empirical evidence because you have not seen the data gathering being carried out. In effect they are saying what you do not want to hear. How do we know about all of these animals LINK that are endangered.

That is a big list mate. I do not think they are going to miss something like a population of Biffs. The PNW is not that big. That is a global list. Suggesting that these people do not do their job thoroughly is not a counter point IMHO. If Biff exists, there is better ways to prove his existence rather than try to blame others for not finding him by way of their own speculated sloppiness. Fact is most new finds are sub-species of known species. We have a good handle not only what is out there, but how many and the list shows this. Especially those in our own backyards. I do not think hiding Biff in Bear population counts is viable to be honest. Each species still has individual traits and needs, if they did not, everything would have just evolved into one species.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:54 PM, said:

There is no point to it, as you have already been presented in numerous threads with various good evidences, that hint at something, but do not proove anything. To go back and list them all would be the work of hours, and since they will be casually dismissed, or shown to be unscientifically gathered, I will not bother at this time.

To me they hint of a Hobo confused by parallax error, not at all an 800 pound covert hominid. As I always say, the Yowie is a construct, why can't Biff be?

Why not just present what you see as a valid scientific argument and present it to see just how valuable it is. If a bunch of forum posters can poke immense holes in it, what do you think scientific standards will do to it?

I don't think there is any good evidence, and I must say I feel you are dodging this request on that very basis. You know there is no good evidences, just half baked straw grabs. If a valid scientific argument exists, please present it.

This post has been edited by psyche101: 05 November 2009 - 05:30 AM

[Neognosis]

Quote

Even if the hair belongs to a goat, elk, or bear, it is evidence... of hoaxing, if nothing else. But, it is evidenece.

Don't be cute, 'checker. Must I say "there is no evidence of bigfoot?"

and to correct you, hair of a goat is not evidence of hoaxing... it is evidence of a goat.

[Agent. Mulder]

Neognosis, on 03 November 2009 - 11:15 PM, said:

or take a college level biology, ecology, zoology, or even botany class.

And mulder, I usually resist coming down to your level, but your responses to me have the ring of a petulant child stamping his feet, covering his ears, and screaming "nah nah nah nah!"

where are these clear pictures you told us were out there?

ahh, i knew you wouldnt have a response for me on that, as you try to bring up something irrelavent and untrue now about me haha

nice try neo. fail. your post was garbage, and just showed your methods of thinking "anyone who thinks differently than me, even if they know more than i do, is a fool and outcast". wow. way to go neo.
just glad everyone saw who you are.
and im waiting for you to quote me on where i said i promised those pics. dont worry, ill wait

[Neognosis]

mulder, did you, or did you not, say that there are clear pictures of bigfoot out there?

Answer with one word please. Yes or no. Are there clear pictures of bigfoot out there?

[Agent. Mulder]

Neognosis, on 05 November 2009 - 10:08 PM, said:

mulder, did you, or did you not, say that there are clear pictures of bigfoot out there?

Answer with one word please. Yes or no. Are there clear pictures of bigfoot out there?

ahhh, trying to get away from your previous posts eh? i would too if i were you. smart move bud.

http://planetparadig...bigfoot_lg1.jpg
well, thats pretty clear.
http://www.mountsthe...om/bigfoot.html
real or fake? im thinking costume maybe. not blurry either way.
http://www.fvza.org/...es/skunkape.jpg
famous skunk ape. pretty clear.
http://z.about.com/d...d/A/yeti_lg.jpg
pretty clear to make out thats not a goat or deer. especially if you watch the footage. yeti? dunno.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zXERZZF7vGY
or like the collection of these pics. but all clear ones? hell no. this dude just tossed a ton together, so its mixed and some look like bunk.

[Neognosis]

Quote

ahhh, trying to get away from your previous posts eh? i would too if i were you. smart move bud.

?What the hell are you even talking about? Getting away from what?

You give us the patterson film and some photos from a promotional website to get people to visit Mt. St. Helens? You do know that's a joke, right? A joke to get tourists to visit? You didn't realize that? I'm so sorry.


Here's a link to a bigfoot sight where they make fun of the OBVIOUS promotional and fake pictures for the Mt. St. Helena's tourism sight, courtesy of another forum member:

http://www.bigfootfo...showtopic=27778



You give us a third link that doesn't work.


A fourth link to a blurry picture of a man walking up a snow covered hill, and a fifth link to a slide show containing some highway traffic noise, static, and some sketches and clay figures of bigfoot?

I'll let everyone else just click on your links and decide for themselves. Oh, look! It's that confirmed emaciated bear with mange that you folks simply won't let go....



Really, Mulder? REALLY? You think the attached photo counts as evidence of bigfoot? REALLY?

Attached File(s)

•  Picture 1.png (185.44K)
  Number of downloads: 10

This post has been edited by Neognosis: 06 November 2009 - 01:32 AM

[catutie]

wasnt that one of bigfoot going up the snowy hill admited to be a hoax? the patterson footage we have debated so much and have good reason to believe its fake. and you admited that the one was a costume which sorry to say isnt biff its a man in a suit. and the famous skunk ape one if i know which one it is was an orangatang so...try again

[Neognosis]

It doesn't matter if that one on the snowy hill was admitted to be a hoax. Some bigfoot believers selectively mine data and discard what they don't like. Or they seem to make a big deal out of sending an unknown fiber out to test, but then they seem to forget about it when it comes back as a coconut husk fiber or a hair from a cow's tail, or whatever.

[catutie]

thus why when bigfoot hunters go out and say they found hair and footprints and say they are being analized they never come back with results cause they dont want to admit it was just a hair off of a horses tail. sneaky

[YETI MAN]

catutie, on 05 November 2009 - 09:53 PM, said:

thus why when bigfoot hunters go out and say they found hair and footprints and say they are being analized they never come back with results cause they dont want to admit it was just a hair off of a horses tail. sneaky

Like I said before unless one comes along and kick you square in the butt. You skeptics will always have an excuse for not believing.

[GreatFenris]

YETI MAN, on 07 November 2009 - 07:37 AM, said:

Like I said before unless one comes along and kick you square in the butt. You skeptics will always have an excuse for not believing.

Until believers can produce real, hard evidence. And not grainy movies which more than likely are fakes...Or scat or hair which is alleged to be "unidentifiable" and then lost...Then yeah, I'll refrain from believing.

[catutie]

YETI MAN, on 06 November 2009 - 10:37 PM, said:

Like I said before unless one comes along and kick you square in the butt. You skeptics will always have an excuse for not believing.

did you read my posts? i already saw biff but it can easily be explained as a bear. there just isnt enough evidence. well theres enough footprints and hair but no bodies or good pics or videos

[YETI MAN]

catutie, on 09 November 2009 - 11:29 AM, said:

did you read my posts? i already saw biff but it can easily be explained as a bear. there just isnt enough evidence. well theres enough footprints and hair but no bodies or good pics or videos

I live in the woods and I can promise that I can tell the difference between a bear and bigfoot. Must be your biff looks a lot like a bear. What I seen walked up right.Bears very seldom walk on their hind legs.

[Neognosis]

bear walking upright for a short distance - not likely but possible

Giant ape living in PA undetected - virtually impossible.