58 replies to this topic

[orangepeaceful79]

U. N.Owen, on 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.


Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.


Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.)  If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow  interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

I'd like to thank you, firstly, for your well-written and intelligently composed response.  I will try my best to address some of your questions.  

i actually came to this forum as a revived believer, if you can believe that.  As a younger person I was quite simply OBSESSED with cryptids, paranormal, UFO - all of that and sundry.  I read as much as I could get my hands on and over the years although the intensity of my quest for knowledge on the subject waned as I ventured into other pursuits, I remained a believer.  On new year's day I watched the Finding Bigfoot marathon and it rekindled my interest in the topic.  I came across this website as I was looking for information on the topic.  

What happened here is that I suddenly one day saw that all the things I had previously thought of as evidence of all the paranormal things I believed in weren't as solid as I'd previously thought.  I won't go into all that stuff, because you apparently have heard enough about what I think is evidence and what isn't.  

My purpose here is actually somewhat broader than to voice my skepticism actually.  I write some fair to middling poetry over yonder in the Writer's and Artist's hangout, and I also like to play in the fun and games section.  

What keeps me coming back to post on these topics is not to belittle others or make other poster's feel insulted as I have done to you apparently.  I am a firm believer however that people are completely entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.  I like facts to be the same for everyone.  I'm like most any human I suppose in that I like things to make sense and have order.  And for that order to occur, it seems to me that facts should be provable.  

I am not opposed to the idea of many paranormal things existing.  I would be totally thrilled if someday someone could actually prove, with evidence that Bigfoot was indeed real, or if hauntings actually occurred.  I really would be.  It would bring back some of the excitement and magic I felt in my youth with regards to these topics.  I think that there are things about our world that we don't know yet.  Surely we haven't yet learned everything that there is to know.  I accept that.  What I won't accept is that this lack of total knowledge should be used as some do  - like a blank check- for all manner of extraordinary claims.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  

I don't regard myself as a macho person, and I do truly have an open mind.  If someone were to provide proof of all or some of these paranormal occurances then I would welcome it with open arms.  You mention tracks, recordings, and eyewitness accounts.  Those will all indeed have their place as supporting evidence someday if someone actually brings in a bigfoot.  All of those pieces of information will serve to enrich our knowledge of bigfoot if indeed it is ever proven to exist.  But without hard evidence that can be studied (like a live or dead bigfoot) those things aren't enough to prove it - for me at least, and for many others.  

Your Einstein example is a nice touch, but the logic is flawed.  Sure Einstein concieved of one of his theories in a daydream, but then he did what so far hasn't been accomplished in the cryptid community - he proved it!    

Thanks again for your post.  I hope that we can continue a discourse with at least a grudging respect for each other.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

pretty good posts. both you guys, actually

[Myles]

U. N.Owen, on 12 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

^I seem to recall you, Orange, in a previous post letting slip that you are `a teacher by trade`. If this is really so, then you ought to have learnt that Repetition-Does-Not-Create -Understanding:The `broken record technique` only works in self-assertion situations, not in teaching (and still less in debate). In other words if you find that other posters have this (to you) irritating tendency not to bowing down to your (to you) evidently superior logic then it mat just be that they have thought about it as seriously as you have but reached different conclusions.


Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.


Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.

Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.)  If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

One telling thing about you, and your fellow  interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?

Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)

Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.

Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post  by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.

I must comment.
It appears to me that the "believer" are the group who will skip right by the evidence moreso than the skeptics.  At least the skeptics have past hoaxes (and many of them) to drive them.   Believers have nothing (please not the old mountain gorilla).   I can understand how the "there is not any substantial evidence" can wear on you.  I think the same thing when someone puts a globe in my face.   I don't care!!!!    The earth is still flat!!!!!!!!!!

[Neognosis]

Quote

Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.

That's because there is NO EVIDENCE. Eyewitness accounts are NOT evidence. This is not the opinion of Orange, nor myself, but a fact. You don't get to decide what you think constitutes evidence of bigfoot, if you are making the claim that bigfoot may be real.There are rules and protocol for things like this in the scientific community. The reason I didn't have to study bigfoot, or leprechauns, or fairies, or chupacabras, or pig-dog hybrids is because they are unknown to science. Because there is no scientific evidence.

Quote

you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.

Are we really going to revisit the goodall quote? Folks like Orange sound repetitive because the same nonsense keeps getting re-spouted by various "believers" no matter how many times you provide evidence that they are mistaken. The goodall quote was given on NPR during an interview about something else. And what Goodall says is that she WANTS them to be real, she BELIEVES that they could be real, but she says that there is NO EVIDENCE that they exist.


For some reason, bigfooters think this is an endorsement of their fantasy by an actual scientist. And no matter how many times you point out that Goodall ends her quote with this : "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 says THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, BUT SHE WANTS THEM TO EXIST.


The overwhelming vast majority of biologists, zoologists, naturalists, and every other "ist" that studies north american wildlife agree that there is no evidence for bigfoot, and bigfoot is extremely unlikely to survive in North america without leaving significant evidence.

Now if you don't bring up Goodall again, we won't mention that you are misinterpreting her again.

[Thought]

Swede, on 08 February 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Agreed! There is another factor that could be considered amusing/questionable. Have had the opportunity to view a number of photos of the "Starchild" skull. While working from photos is does have its limitations, certain factors can be evaluated. One of these is the ability to compare (depending on photo angle) the various cranial components to those known to be consistent with H.s.s.

While there is the obvious distortion of some of these due to hydrocephaly, the various cranial components of H.s.s.would all appear to be present. Parietals, frontals, temporals,zygoma, mastiod processes, nasals, lacrimals, etc., etc. Even the supraorbital foramen.

Which begs the question: Would an "alien" hybrid exhibit the exact same cranial components as a genetically "untampered" H.s.s.?

This aspect does not, of course, even begin to deal with the complex physiological/metabolic/hormonal and related matters.

.

Yes, enough similarities to easily classify it as humanoid. But there are many differences too. Start with the face.

[Swede]

Thought, on 05 July 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

Yes, enough similarities to easily classify it as humanoid. But there are many differences too. Start with the face.

Would you care to be more specific about the cranio-facial elements to which you are referring? In this regard one would wish to keep in mind the distortions of said elements that result from congenital hydrocephalus.

One must also keep in mind the genetic testing:

The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.

http://www.theness.c...rchild-project/

Lastly, one would be advised to keep in mind the rather questionable provenience/provenance of this "artifact".

.

[psyche101]

Swede, on 06 July 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

Would you care to be more specific about the cranio-facial elements to which you are referring? In this regard one would wish to keep in mind the distortions of said elements that result from congenital hydrocephalus.

One must also keep in mind the genetic testing:

The Starchild skull DNA was found to contain both an X and a Y chromosome. This is conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.

http://www.theness.c...rchild-project/

Lastly, one would be advised to keep in mind the rather questionable provenience/provenance of this "artifact".

.

Thought, who some suspect is Pye, has already been pushing this in the ET thread where he hit the same argument. Apparently he does not seem to accept the Y chromosome. He pretends it does not exist, and tries to say bone composition is alien. Ahh well, the DNA testing failed, gotta keep trying something to keep the alien alive! LOL.

Edited by psyche101, 06 July 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Stardrive]

Neognosis, on 15 March 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

For some reason, bigfooters think this is an endorsement of their fantasy by an actual scientist. And no matter how many times you point out that Goodall ends her quote with this : "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 says THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, BUT SHE WANTS THEM TO EXIST.

Well no, she didn't say there was no evidence, she said there was no body to study and based on that they may not exist but she wants them to.

Neo, 2 words you said a long time ago have stuck with me. Environmental impact. I just want to say "thanks!!!" (and I mean that).

[Swede]

psyche101, on 06 July 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

Thought, who some suspect is Pye, has already been pushing this in the ET thread where he hit the same argument. Apparently he does not seem to accept the Y chromosome. He pretends it does not exist, and tries to say bone composition is alien. Ahh well, the DNA testing failed, gotta keep trying something to keep the alien alive! LOL.

Chuckle! It could be that your suspicions are valid. Or they could be the contributions of an acolyte. There would appear to be a rash of similar contributions (regarding a number of topics) in more recent history. In either case, the matter has long ago been addressed. As to the osteological "composition", will await further technical data (!). Will additionally await the clear credentials of those involved in "supporting" Pye's position.

.

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 13 March 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

What is evidence that is not supported other than hearsay?

It is still evidence, it is only circumstantial or considered unsupported.

If someone murdered person A with a 9mm pistol, and person B was found with a 9mm pistol and blood on his shoes, those items are both evidence, even though someone still needs to examine the shoes and the pistol and determine if they are connected to the murder. But starting at minute 1 of the investigation those items are evidence.

Evidence can be eliminated, and can be shown to be relavant, but it can also be in an unsupported status, such as exists in unsubstatiated videos, photos, footprints, vocal recordings, hair samples and whatnot. Until these are clearly eliminated or found to be accurate, they are in an unsupported status, but are still evidence. I would note that almost all bigfoot evidence so far has been eliminated in some way or another.

I think the difference is that only Scientifically substatiated evidence is Proof, and since there is no scientifically prooven evidence, then there is so far no Proof.

Evidence exists, just not Proof.

Edited by DieChecker, 08 July 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 08 July 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

It is still evidence, it is only circumstantial or considered unsupported.

If someone murdered person A with a 9mm pistol, and person B was found with a 9mm pistol and blood on his shoes, those items are both evidence, even though someone still needs to examine the shoes and the pistol and determine if they are connected to the murder. But starting at minute 1 of the investigation those items are evidence.

Evidence can be eliminated, and can be shown to be relavant, but it can also be in an unsupported status, such as exists in unsubstatiated videos, photos, footprints, vocal recordings, hair samples and whatnot. Until these are clearly eliminated or found to be accurate, they are in an unsupported status, but are still evidence. I would note that almost all bigfoot evidence so far has been eliminated in some way or another.

I think the difference is that only Scientifically substatiated evidence is Proof, and since there is no scientifically prooven evidence, then there is so far no Proof.

Evidence exists, just not Proof.

That is a good call, I have to accept that.
I guess I had become somewhat jaded with the entire subject and have not considered Blobsquatches, undetermined fibres and plaster casts, many from apparently single footed Bigoot's. But technically they could be submitted in court, no matter how unlikely they may seem.

I guess this answers the thread about how long can people believe. As long as one numpty has the audacity to come running out of the woods with a Coconut fibre in his hand claiming he just ripped it from Bigfoots back, the justice process means that we have to put kid gloves back on each and every time this sort of thing happens and repeat the process of elimination.

Not even removal of all the worlds forests would stop the claims in that case.

Edited by psyche101, 25 July 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[DieChecker]

You calling me a numpty??

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 25 July 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

You calling me a numpty??

Not until you take over from Henner Farhenbach and come running from the woods with a fibre in your hand screaming I HAVE PROOF! BIGFOOT IS REAL!! Them maybe yes. You might even agree with me then.

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 25 July 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Not until you take over from Henner Farhenbach and come running from the woods with a fibre in your hand screaming I HAVE PROOF! BIGFOOT IS REAL!! Them maybe yes. You might even agree with me then.