Leaderboard

To be clear, there is evidence, just no body. And yes, I know you'll first say "What evidence? There is no evidence." And then when presented with a list of available forensic evidence say that it isn't actual evidence and go into a rote denial of whether or not any forensic evidence short of a body is evidence. We've all heard it. And we've all recognized that it is just your subjective opinion. And yes, you'll point to various hoaxes as if to say "If one is a hoax, then they all must be hoaxes". A logical fallacy. And you'll refuse to consider that the sheer volume of data and forensic evidence that has amassed has any value, and so on. So yes, you've got us....we have no body. And yes, we understand that you'll cross your arms, stick out your lower lip and stamp your foot until we do. But the majority of us are more objective, and we'll move on.

I have posted the picture of the twisted break from the BFRO report a few pages back to a botanical science forum asking what could lead to breaks like this in nature. I will share the responses when I get some.

Stories about bodies are useless.

So, today you are not going to pretend my posts are little blue leaves that you cannot open and read? How fortunate. Could we have some more woods wisdom, Scout? Maybe your sidekick can chime in about how wise it is to drink standing water without any concern for parasites. That would be funny again.

ugh

" Without evidence there is no proof. The foot dragging and nay saying that has been going on for years in the majority of the scientific community with respect to this creature is going to be hard to overcome even if a body or part thereof is brought in" That is, simply put, wrong. A body could not be denied. How you can even say something like that is beyond me. Furthermore, if your results are analyzed by other scientists and your conclusions not supported, then why would you think your paper should open the eyes of the scientific community? You need to have valid, repeatable results. So far, the one time someone in the scientific community has examined your paper, she has not agreed with your findings. You need to crank down the footer rhetoric and be a bit more objective. And the next time you write a scientific paper (if there is one), I would suggest you don't mention the spooky forest and the hairs on the back of your neck. Nonsense like that does not help your paper at all. Are you writing a bigfoot campfire story, or a scientific paper?

^^ Good grief.

Law approaches evidence different than science. This has been pointed out many, many times here.

Do you think 75% is "accurate" in science? I dont i work in a hospital lab 75% accuracy gets people dead. Whats more the 75% doesnt even appear to be from the field but from statistical analysis comparing jaw and tooth measurements from darabases. Im not sure there are any figures on the accuracy from scavenged bones in the field. Someone could provide them and demonstrate it is possible to accuratly identify species from scavenged bones

Look at the bite marks, sure. One of the points being discussed is whether or not that is a reliable method to determine the scavenger species. There seem to be results and findings that challenge the reliability of using tooth impact marks on scavenged bones for species identification. If that is the case, then what benefit to looking at the bite marks yourself? So that you can say, yeah it looks like bigfoot did it? I have some tea leaves that indicate otherwise.

Her thesis, wherein it seems that she challenges tooth impact analysis on scavenged bones as a method for identifying the scavenger, has what, exactly, to do with bigfoot? Perhaps you should visit her advisor and tell him/her that her thesis is invalid because she doesn't believe in bigfoot. If someone said I believe DNA analysis can be used to identify a species, but also said they think bigfoot is a myth, then their comments re: DNA analysis are no longer valid?

Which refrence specefically demonstrates that tooth marks on scavenged bones can be used to accuratly identify a species? I looked through the some of the ones you bizarrly lump together to support your statements. The only one that i saw was the faust disertation which in a controlled test was able to predict at about 75% for carnivores. Most concerned a specefic group of animal, bear, coyote, chimp, etc. Its laughably bad you use Bright to support the identification of scavenged bones since her work indicates otherwise. Not to pile on but the footprint is awful. It barely looks like any sort of footprint let alone a sasquatch. But then you take these awful prints to extrapolate a height leading to the bizarre giant human figure the paper determines was the culprit. No ones going to publish this if you leave any of this in the paper, also the diary section at the beginning is not needed if you want to be taken seriously. Also not to nitpick but it doesnt appear Hanglund & Sorg 2002 is actully listed in your refrences. Any scientist that says "you can't do that" is setting themselves up for being wrong. Most things like that are made to work by simply figuring out procedures and lab techniques that solve the problems and are made to work. I don't know what her thesis is about but I if it is directly related to the discussion here, I don't think she would want BTW present when she presents her thesis. As WSA says this bone study could very well add useful techniques and body to her own work. Perhaps that is what her interest is. Do the findings and techniques presented in the bone study contradict her own thesis? Is that why she needed to weigh in? Her work was sited as support for some of the methodology used within the bigfoot bone paper. Her conclusions are that some of the methods used in the bigfoot bone paper are not accurate.

Crowlogic - There are a number of reasons. First and foremost, I've seen two for certain and very most likely a third. All the logic in the world about why one thing or another is a hoax is ab-so-lutely IRRELEVANT in the face of that. You might as well try to convince me the moon doesn't exist. It's not a problem with ME, it's a problem with YOU. Your feeble protests have been weighed and rejected as inadequate "special pleading". Beyond that ... well, frankly there's no point in "beyond that" unless I'm pretending denial of my own observations and experiences and I'm not intellectually dishonest enough to delve down that path. Bigfoots are real. Deal with it. There is no "waste of time" in trying to understand what you know to be true. The waste of time is sitting around arguing, as you do, with people who already have a thing figure out that is beyond your personal comprehension. Project and protest all you want but it's you, not me, that's wasting time. MIB