Leaderboard

“The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.†- Mark Twain Some of you will be happy, and apparently some of you will be deeply saddened by fact that Finding Bigfoot has NOT been cancelled (though a special 'thank you' goes out to the folks who hate the show but still watch for whatever reason). We are filming more episodes this summer, and the episodes that didn't air this past month will be tagged onto the new ones for a longer season when they do finally air. The erratic airing schedule is the product of whatever happens in the ivory towers at Animal Planet, and I have nothing at all to do with it. I just look for bigfoot. Every season since the first, there have been rumors that the show has been cancelled. Each time people say how they knew this would happen and give their reasons why the show was cancelled. They are often surprised it went on as long as it has (even back after the first season!). Trust me when I say that nobody is more surprised than we are that the show has lasted this long, and still has very steady ratings after all this time. I am told that the show's ratings aren't spectacularly high, but they are good, solid and consistent. This means a lot to a network when ratings across all cable networks have been dropping dramatically due to the introduction of new forms of media like Netflix and Hulu. In other news... Commercial permitting for the National Forests has been more difficult these past few years. Two films in particular apparently made a mess out of the national forests and entered into lawsuits about who is responsible for cleaning it up, so the Feds shut down the permitting process until things could get sorted out. It's slowly getting better now, and it goes by a forest-by-forest basis. Sometimes it's very easy to get access to almost anywhere, and other times they won't even talk to the producers trying to get permission. Thanks for watching, everyone. I'm looking forward to meeting some of you face-to-face in Ohio next week! Cliff

Congratulations. I suppose you cross-referenced BFRO's data then? All 12,000 reports....obviously by writing down every detail of every report because you know you only get to see one report at a time- so you HAVE to write everything down. Now why do you think that is? Odd way to assure pattern recognition. YA THINK! And your apathy is well, apathetic. Since you're still here after 9,500 posts I guess you're used to being empty handed. Yelling at the scientists the way you do? You're doing your job. That being redirecting the pressure off the ones who could make a difference but don't. Pretending the problem is outside the camp. TSK, TSK.

It means I'm calling to question your position and agenda. But to get back on topic: With regard to Mr. Keating and his relevance? Why would any habituator trust anyone in Bigfootery when even a top deeply entrenched icon like Keating lied about his encounter. This IS on topic and it IS relevant unless you can only see the whole picture as narrowly as you seem to do. In other words disregarding and marginalizing Mr. Keating's....uh...inconvenience shall we say? Trust in others is a habituators dilemma but since you have chosen to ignore a major stumbling block by referring to it as irrelevant I have to seriously wonder your purpose here. And just so you know this isn't personal. I would say the same thing to anyone possessing the same modus operandi. So this isn't about you as a person it's about shortsighted arguments that sideline the current social cap on Bigfootdom as if it wasn't there and so affects no one. There is a ceiling that no one seems to be able to break through when it comes to the data necessary to make headway on the subject. Habituators therefore have no reason at all to play the game that most others are wrapped up in. Ergo the circular dialogue plaguing the community for the last 20 years. Habituators KNOW that to step into that circle with their experiences so that they can be "vetted" by a group of individuals who are only in it for themselves and who maintain a firm clamp on information could only result in having their habituation events destroyed. Disregarding a person you coin as irrelevant only strengthens their resolve to keep habituation encounters private. Everyone seems afraid to say the emperor has no clothes. It's basically what is wrong with the current picture. It's what assures everyone that the Sasquatch mystery will never be solved from the inside out.

I rest my case. Calling Don Keating irrelevant says it all. You've just exposed yourself as the man behind the curtain.

how is discussing sympatric speciation relevent to whether or not evolution occours? I also failed to mention allopatric speciation. Can you provide sources to these scientists that deny the possibility of sympatric ebolution. Im guessing you looked speciation on wiki and read where there is some controversy. You should have gone a little farther http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804?journalCode=ecolsys#/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804 The debate now is mostly on how common this form of speciation occours and whether current models like the stickelback, ragworm, or island palm can be qualified as sympatric speciation. Its great you dont value microbes i guess your right though microbes dont have the same constraints as multicellular organisms. they dont need to acquire resources or an energy source, competition, the need for reproduction, have prey predatory relationships, adapt to novel situations. Whats next plants dont count either? As far as dogs go a better example would be comparing dogs to wolves. 32000 years or so has created two forms with divergent physiology, behavior and dna. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3894170/#!po=17.8571 I can only guess you are talking about electroporation since you dont provide any sources. An electrical source in an ionic solution can cause the cellular membrane of bacteria to loosen and take in plasmids. im not sure you understand what you are even talking about here. In evolution species do not jump from one to the other. it is slow gradual changes over several generations. the wiki article you looked at provides several examples of this occouring, some to an extent right before our eyes. Pick up a textbook, read articles on google scholar, or wiki. Im curious do you think you just know better than these thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to the subject? Do you feel your thoughts and feelings on evolution trump all the work thats been done in biology? Do you also not believe in electricity because you cant see the electron moving from one atom to the next?

We've covered this extensively in other threads. Powell, the first head of the Smithsonian's Bureau of Ethnology, unabashedly advocated the suppression of a significant amount of anthropological data in his first annual report. The Powell Doctrine continued to hold sway in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Why? Powell's true purpose was to legitimize Manifest Destiny, which was in full swing, and anthropologists, based on their finds in Eastern Indian Mounds, were reaching a consensus that there had been extensive communication between the Old and New Worlds prior to Columbus, something the Smithsonian now acknowledges. There was also a growing belief that certain "lost tribes of antiquity", as Powell put it, had migrated to the New World. Any view that any Native American tribes were descendants of Old World settlers had the potential to legitimize their prior claim to lands that were being taken away from them and to jeopardize Manifest Destiny. There was also a movement in the West at that time that held that a certain historical person from Israel had appeared to Native Americans. Again, this jeopardized Manifest Destiny. If anyone actually reads Powell's report, it is glaringly obvious that he had an agenda which included the suppression of certain finds. Were giant skeletons acquired by the Smithsonian? Many contemporary accounts so claim. If so, were they destroyed? Who can say? But there is plenty of smoke to suggest that there was a "fire". Personally, I hope that nothing was destroyed. That there is an archive someplace where any such skeletons remain preserved and forgotten. It's easier to "dispose" of evidence by disposing of records of it, or mislabeling it, than it is to actually dispose of it.

I was just reading through this thread and the pygmy rabbit comment is appropriate. We have graduate students devoting their life and staking their careers on pygmy rabbits or some rare shrew in Africa. Meanwhile we have something stomping around the woods of North American whose massive footstep sounds are second only to what one could have heard 65 million years ago from a bipedal dinosaur. All we need to do is get the right scientist or group of scientists to the right place at the right time to have that experience. Somehow a pygmy rabbit will never be the same for them. I will never forget the sound of that BF moving through the woods directly towards me. Good heavens, I have been supersonic dozens of times but that pales in comparison to a BF encounter. We need to share that BF encounter experience with more scientists. They will not be able to ignore that. That said, I don't know how to do that other than some Jane Goodall type situation where you can take people into an active area. Maybe someone here can get that going someplace. It would be difficult but is not impossible.

Crow, there are scores of newspaper reports including accompanying photos of finds of what can loosely be termed "giants" bones, skull, etc., and many were sent to the logical destination for further examination - the Smithsonian. In just one find, there may have been plural individuals - sent to the Smithsonian. I don't know how much more widespread documentation you would require - from multiple discoveries, from multiple locations here in the States - but one thing is certain - the Smithsonian claims they don't have the bone, the skeletons, nor the skulls. Some were reported to be really big humans, others were reported to be more like a primitive with large protruding eyebrows and significantly sloping forehead. Doesn't matter - they don't exist. Any longer. If you'll play the Devil's advocate just for this one moment - why would the Smithsonian conceal a quantity of such remains? Faenor? Think about what you just said. Scientists can alter species purposefully by changing its genome. That, my friend, is Third-Party Genetic Engineering. Not natural. Not one species has ever jumped to another species. This evolution only addresses minor adaptations within a species.

The notion of a "board" includes some authority to regulate. Nobody has that. At best you get a toothless yap dog. .. and there isn't much point. Who has been successful so far in being unethical? MIB

Odd. This hidden, silent mutatation of nucleodites you suggest seems to be so hidden, and so silent, that it was insufficient for 99.5% of the world's species that went extinct. It didn't work for 99.5%. I'd say, that's probably a major failure as a mechanism, or maybe there's a .5% chance another mechanism is in place. If I understand this correctly, the coelecanth changed out nucleotides, with radical genomes, but it didn't change morphologically, and is identical to the fossil. Now you suggest that the coelecanth found his little haven - geologically and environmentally - which was apparently a consistent environment as no changes were needed. Which brings up catastrophic geology. The world is not the same as it was 60,000,000 years ago. We've had the Paleogen Period hallmarked by mass extinctions, the Neogene Period hallmarked with mass extinctions, and the current Quaternary Period hallmarked by mass extinctions. Yet, during all this series of mass extinctions due to catastrophic geology, this particular fish never changed a thing. Could it be that maybe it just lucked out, and the coelecanth's contemporaries just perchance went extinct? Sixty million years is a long time - to do nothing different. Through major changes in the environment all around the world. In fact, 60 million years is a long time to demonstrate this evolutionary mechanism, that oddly, is so fast and so radical as to take us from a 3 foot ape to where we are today - jumping forward in great advances and leaps across species, and creating entire new species while simultaneously coexisting with species we're supposed to come from. I can imagine a modern man sitting around the fire with a Neanderthal, Denisovan, and a h. Erectus, having a beer while chewing on an h.floresciensis, and arguing over who had the uglier, meaner women. I have nothing to do with anti-evolution pamphlets, and of course that's a clever argument - because it's so very scientific. Maybe you should pick up some textbooks. I've seen the results of 150 years of scholarship, and it's embarrassing. How about that Piltdown man? That was solid science there for a few years. Like the Nebraska man. Remember the "Flipperpithecus?" For this theory to work, there has to be good evidence of transitional forms between species. Period. And there aren't ANY. Mis-identification of h. Erectus into four separate species does not constitute transitional forms. What was it Darwin himself said? "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin said it, not me.