MIB

Members
  • Content count

    1,935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,346 Mythical

About MIB

  • Rank
    Yowie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking.

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

6,870 profile views
  1. That, and exactly for that reason. The claim is that the markers are ONLY consistent with genetic tampering, that there are no known naturally occurring instances of the specific sort of fusion that leaves us with 23 instead of 24 pairs. How do people without the expertise determine whether those who made the claim have the expertise to make it? Just like bigfoot, there's scofticism on one hand and faith on the other, and people in both camps claiming middle ground they don't hold. Ironic, huh? MIB
  2. Back to the original question? Where professional scientists should review bigfoot evidence is the place other professional scientists should have presented their bigfoot evidence. If there's nothing for them to look at, it's not for lack of trying on the part of us amateurs, it's for lack of trying on the part of the other professionals. I mean .. they want material published by their credentialed peers, right? Not us? So isn't it incumbent on those peers to provide something? All we get is scoffed at when we put something up for examination, often not because of quality or lack of it, but because we don't have the credentials. MIB
  3. Possibly, give or take. Which might be those larger than today's size people you mentioned earlier today. It is no wilder than any of the other explanations offered for the weird combinations of individually unlike (for a great ape) characteristics. It costs nothing to set that answer slightly aside but leave it on the table in case more supporting evidence comes along. Doing so is a more valid process for real science than cherry picking data to make the things we don't like go away .. particularly when there's a chance our expectations are what's wrong and the data is right. MIB
  4. I don't believe there are federal restrictions, however, at the state level there definitely are. Some states, like Oregon, list all protected wildlife. Anything not listed is considered vermin or non-native and may be shot. Other states, like California, specifically list the wildlife that may be shot. Everything not specifically listed is protected by law. Each person should examine their state's F&G regs and know which kind of rules they're operating under. MIB
  5. Yeah .. don't **** off the guy with the giant binary hammer! You're doing fine, gig. Sometimes training is not an asset, it's an impediment to doing what needs doing. MIB
  6. Yes and no. Since I've seen 2 for sure, probably a 3rd, they unquestionably do exist, so the issues are 1) opportunity for further study, 2) impact on them of discovery, and 3) impact on us of discovery. Regarding wanting them "discovered", the question comes down to whether the pluses for #1 offset the costs for #2 and #3. I don't think so, at least not today. For now, I'll do what study I can, personally, while avoiding the costs. MIB
  7. It's not a constant, it depends on whether the natural habitat of "critter X" has conditions that produce ANY fossils or not. Generally fossils come from desert or semi desert areas where flash floods kill things, bury them in sediment quickly, and then they dry / mummify. We do not find fossils of much in wet climates with acidic soils like the Pac NW, tropical islands, or rain forests anywhere. Remains rot / dissolve before they can be preserved. Even historical climate of the US plains is not that great for fossils. Given bigfoot's presumed habitat, we're likely out of luck. We will either find fresh remains or nothing at all. A possible exception is something SWWASAS has said many times: the ash deposits from Mt St Helens present a possible opportunity. We've found other fossilized critters in ash other places so this might be worth focusing on. If that is the case, then other recent N.A. volcanic sites might also present opportunities. Lassen has been active in historical times, Hood nearly so. Worth a look. Maybe, on the off chance they've been in N.A. longer than I suspect, even the area around Yellowstone if there are readily accessible ash deposits. In a sense you've got a collection of "fudge factors" we have intuitive feels for but can't really put numbers on, we can say "this, more likely here than there", to many components contributing to the picture, but so far as quantifying ... we're not that far along. I don't know that we truly need to be, we just need to put our efforts into the places that seem, based on what we think the factors are, most likely. I suppose since we're just making seat of the pants guesses which may be wrong, it's probably a good idea to throw up a "Hail, Mary" once in a while in hopes of success via luck rather than success via skill. MIB
  8. Most people I know who operate in a personal "need to prove it" mode are people who have had a sighting or heard vocalizations, told people they trusted and instead of support got ridiculed / lost face, and feel they have something they need to recover which can only be done by proving they were right all along. In other words, it's about restoring perceived lost reputation. Hate to say it, but it really is important to be selective in who you share with and, best of all, until you've had some time to sit back and watch, NOT share what you've seen at all. MIB
  9. dmaker - Where scientists should look was YOUR question, not mine. I gave you the answer about where they should look. Take it or leave it. MIB
  10. My answers would be as speculative as your pejorative insinuations are. If you really cared to know, you could ask them. MIB
  11. I don't, in fact, I suspect it has happened. However, expecting all scientists to assess the data identically, when they have different expertise in different areas, is like expecting a deep water shark to act exactly like a high lake trout just because they're both fish. It's more than silly, it's outright stupid. The fact is, though, when a scientist IS impressed and does write a book, you label a proponent and you write them off just like you have everyone else who is a proponent. Examples: Meldrum, Sykes, Bindernagel, Krantz ... etc. MIB
  12. Yes, at this point in the process, it is EXACTLY how it has to be done because it is what is available. This is discovery **in progress**. Without the scientific establishment on board, the absolute only source of information is the amateurs who are doing the heavy lifting in the field. There's a saying ... people who respect the law or sausage should not watch either being made. It is the same thing here: if you are trying to put science on a pedestal, you should not watch the discovery process in progress. Real science will never live up to your expectations. The result may but the process won't. MIB
  13. Frankly, your assumptions seem to suggest some sort of idiot-savant "syndrome" among scientists ... so brilliant we have to hang on their every word, yet so stupid they can't investigate the very thing we're supposed to accept their view on unless spoon fed. You don't think scientists know how to investigate things they're curious about? It's plainly obvious that since bigfoot's existence is NOT scientifically accepted, there are no peer reviewed papers presenting proof. Scientists who want to know about the evidence have to do the same thing as the amateurs like me who want to know about the evidence: dig. There are plenty of relevant papers available. Read them. If they seem interesting, then dig into their sources and see if the conclusions are truly supported by the evidence. Look at Fahrenbach's papers, Bindernagel's, Krantz', Meldrum's. Others. Look at what the Russian hominologists have published. Lack of peer reviewed papers by no means implies a lack of scholarly works worthy of examination. Read the books that were (gasp) published for profit. Read some which were not. Then contact those academics who have produced the papers and discuss the content with them. Geez man, scientists are supposed to be smart yet when it comes to finding .. y' know, **investigating**, you're treating them like they can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. MIB
  14. Your belief / acceptance is not required for a thing to be true. (Go ahead, finish the irony by saying you don't believe that to be true, either. :)) MIB
  15. Ok, I'll bite. The problem is circular. Peer review means submission to a journal, acceptance for review, then review by a panel of scientists either working for, or volunteering for, the journal. Scientists .. y' know, the exact people who won't do the review for the paper they won't read. You'll never get scientific acceptance of a paper for review 'til science has already accepted bigfoot. MIB