Leaderboard

I've been reading and taking in the comments. I asked Dr. Hart a few questions and he answered. I can't say I appreciate whatever you're inferring about me dropping out once Hart joined. I would rather discuss topics and instead of things directed at me, like you and MIB seem inclined to do, or bipedalist with the blowing smoke up there comment. So no thanks for steering the conversation to a lower level.

Does this flight have barf bags?

Wait a second. Nothing has been demonstrated. It has been stated, many times, but never demonstrated. I am simply asking that WSA present pictures or video of a sampling of tree breaks that he feels could not have been the result of natural causes other than bigfoot. For example, snow load, wind, plant pathology or human agent. I promise I will do my best to try and understand them. I'm not, after all, a self-proclaimed scientist like yourself. Would you like to take up the proposal, or did you just come here to bluster?

Jayjeti, you and I had obvious differences when it came to Melba's study. I tried to assist by inviting Dr. Hart. I also did that because I felt that there was much misinformation getting posted that needed clarification. You were the primary one leading the conversation at that point. I was just noticing that you had gone quiet since Dr. Hart cleared things up. Anything else you are reading into my comment is on you. I'm not "inferring" anything. I have no problem coming right out and saying what I think. Who is doing the steering here? No.... MIB said to "predefine the assumptions Hart was allowed to work from .. which failed." was disingenuous.

Jayjeti did something interesting. He (I assume its a "he") announced a lack of expertise, then tried to control the conversation as if lacking expertise or understanding somehow excuses a person from the need to be correct and returns them to the same authority on the topic as someone who knows what they're talking about. The second thing Jayjeti tried to do was predefine the assumptions Hart was allowed to work from .. which failed. Disingenuous and dirty pool all around. You're right ... suddenly noticeably absent. Licking his wounds or asking Melba for a raise? MIB

12, 267 actual scientists considered state of evidence and conclude "No bigfoot." Two posters, one a self-appointed scientist consider state of evidence and conclude "No brainer. It's obvious bigfoot exists." Incorrigible1 considers overwhelming difference and concludes "Go with actual scientists." Drops mic.

"Of this, let me just say: Do you know anyone who takes the time and effort to fabricate a detailed story like this and then call up law enforcement to elaborate about it? Neither do I. It doesn't happen in the universe Homo sapiens inhabits (unless you have an exoplanet where it's documented). People don't do it." Do you seriously believe the above? People never create elaborate stories and tell them to the authorities? You can't be serious.

I rarely agree with MIB, but bravo on an excellent posting.

You talk about your familiarity, yet much like your post mate, balk at any request to demonstrate anything. Forgive me, if I fail to place much emphasis on your observational powers in regards to natural processes. I could tell you that I can fly, but if I refused to demonstrate every time I was asked, would you extend me any credibility?

ShadowBorn, Most often it is only like trying to teach a fish to ride a bike. More and more, I just don't have the time for such nonsense. If you have the energy for it, I commend you. But, eyes open. You're engaging with some who deny there is ANY evidence of BF out there, and actively demonstrate how unfamiliar they are with the observation of natural processes. So, not predicted to be a very fruitful conversation.

Interesting. Wonder why Jayjeti dropped out of the conversation when Hart joined us.

What could make a tree break provocative would be Bigfoot footprints around the break positioned in the necessary conformation for the creature to actually break the tree. There is no real reason for a Sasquatch to do this either. That's a lot of wasted calories for a creature who's first goal is probably finding food.

LOL, except to talk down to them? When challenged to demonstrate knowledge you claim to have, you clam up. I wish I could say that I am surprised.

Prove your knowledge, then. Demonstrate how snow load or wind, or age or plant pathology could not have possibly done, say, 5 -10 tree breaks of your choosing. Better get started, here is your chance to shine.

Another provocative post by the person whose stated purpose here is to stir up animus whenever the mood strikes him NOT to have an honest back and forth.

It's alright for you to say you think bigfoot did it, but no one can say I don't think bigfoot did it, without being told to shut their yap by you? I don't think bigfoot is responsible for any tree breaks. I think they are all the result of natural events such as wind or snowfall. Perhaps even some human effort to boot. Must I now "shut my yap"?

Agree with all of the above, and though you've each said it in context, the biggest potential obstacle is this: If bigfoot is in fact a hybrid, then the assumption that any human DNA appearing in samples is just contamination is fundamentally wrong and results in discarded evidence. The only safeguard against this is to publish proper sample collection procedures to the community and to carefully collect DNA samples from every person in the chain of custody. If the samples show human DNA that corresponds to that of anyone in the chain of custody, then it is obviously contaminated. If it shows human DNA that does not correspond to anyone in the chain of custody, and the sample itself is clearly not of human origin, then the sample must be analyzed under the assumption that a hybrid origin is possible.

From a procedural standpoint, Ketchum's study can't be validated. She skipped steps. You start with a hypothesis, devise a test, explain how/why the test will validate or invalidate the hypothesis, perform the experiment or test, present the results, interpret them, and draw a conclusion based on the results and your interpretation. There was a fundamental disconnect in the Ketchum study between the results presented and the conclusions drawn: the interpretation was wrong. The results do NOT show what the conclusion claims they show. You can only argue otherwise from a position of ignorance about the subject. If there is in fact a valid, logical connection (interpretation), Ketchum has to explain it because REAL experts in the field (those who did the peer review and rejected the paper over and over and over) could not find it. Doubt me? Go back and read the peer reviews for yourself. MIB

First off, I didn't say that "I know" what it is. If you would have read my posts you would see that I said "it's not absolute". You guys always seem to complain about the same thing over and over again even when it's not the case, like we're dealing with a canned response. People here always take the story behind the photos as part of determining their conclusion. Rick Dyer is a known hoaxer- nobody is taking any of his evidence into consideration anymore. Why do you think that is? Do you think it was wrong to run him and his evidence off? If there's dishonesty behind the evidence then I could care less if they run in the opposite direction. Quantity of evidence means nothing to me- the only evidence worth looking at is honest evidence. I would like Gumshoeye to explain how his story went from 'I didn't see anything' and taking random pictures, to seeing a Bigfoot looking right at him and having a full blown encounter.

WSA, I do understand your point, and kudos to Gum for taking to the field and investigating and taking some photos. SE MI is not as crazy of an area to investigate as one might think, BF at least move through the area at times for some reason (It has more than its fair share of reports for the type of area it is, and is where I had my clear visual encounter). But having said all that, this pic is clearly pareidolia. It is quite fair to point that out, and by doing so visitors to this forum can see that this is a serious place that allows real discussion of evidence. Critical to forum health IMHO.

Just to be sure I understand ... cut up ... saw marks present, not just removed? I'm not questioning your story, just trying to be sure I understand this was through use of technology / tools, not merely brute force? A second question ... this may be my eyes, my monitors, or something, but to me it looks more yellow-green, not red. It definitely looks like something alive but it doesn't look like any bigfoot I ever saw. I'm puzzled. MIB

Your post is absurd. Are you only looking for biased pro-Bigfoot supporting viewpoints? No honest objective views? My comments were completely non-offensive in any way and I was simply stating an honest personal opinion of what I see. Not only is the object the same general shape of a tree break, but it also matches in color. How is that being rude to anyone? Please explain. Can you show me where I "ridiculed" anything? Can you show me where I gave "harsh and relentless criticism"? Can you show me where I "mocked with scornful laughter"? This forum is not exempt from opinions. People here constantly complain about all of this "mockery" and "ridicule", but even when someone posts a simple objective opinion, you blow up and get defensive because it isn't supporting your personal views. If you only want biased pro-Bigfoot viewpoints then just be honest and admit it. Don't disguise it as something else- 'being mercilessly mocked and ridiculed', because that was clearly not the case here.

Not saying this is absolute or anything but this is what it looks like to me-

I think that light colored thing in post 412 above looks like the freshly broken end of a tree.