Jump to content

Peer Review, The Scientific Arguments And Cross Applying To Bigfoot

Guest

By Guest
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

We make our own reputable Journal!

Okay, but how do you make that journal reputable if it publishes papers on bigfoot activity that cannot reliably be attributed to bigfoot? I certainly can't publish a paper on Wood Thrush behavior if there is any likelihood that the Wood Thrushes in my study were actually Hermit Thrushes.

If you just want a place where people can share their experiences with things they ascribe to bigfoot, such places already exist: popular books, the BFRO sightings database, the Sightings subforum here, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

Guest parnassus

Posted
Posted

Okay, but how do you make that journal reputable if it publishes papers on bigfoot activity that cannot reliably be attributed to bigfoot? I certainly can't publish a paper on Wood Thrush behavior if there is any likelihood that the Wood Thrushes in my study were actually Hermit Thrushes.

If you just want a place where people can share their experiences with things they ascribe to bigfoot, such places already exist: popular books, the BFRO sightings database, the Sightings subforum here, etc.

you name it "A Reputable Journal."

"....and we published our bigfoot research in A Reputable Journal."

(I used to go The Library bar while I was in college.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Nope, if the evidence doesnt pass peer review it wasn't good enough. Pretty simple.

If the level of evidence was good enough for a fish or a frog or any other animal, it's good enough for BF. Pretty simple. Unless you're a Skeptic, then BF needs tons of evidence above and beyond what would be needed for any other critter.

And why exactly are we taking your word for it? Those experts maybe just dont have sufficient evidence to back up what you want to believe, and would love to force the rest of us to believe. Make with proof or fall short of the mark.

The circumstances behind the analysis of the Skookum Impression are described in Dr Meldrum's book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" The dual-credentialed expert was Dr Schaller (if memory serves, I don't have the book with me as I post this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest mxav

Guest mxav

Posted
Posted

If the level of evidence was good enough for a fish or a frog or any other animal, it's good enough for BF. Pretty simple. Unless you're a Skeptic, then BF needs tons of evidence above and beyond what would be needed for any other critter.

The circumstances behind the analysis of the Skookum Impression are described in Dr Meldrum's book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" The dual-credentialed expert was Dr Schaller (if memory serves, I don't have the book with me as I post this).

The nature of yur response made me curious enough to go back and read some of your posting history and it seems I've touched a nerve. And sadly for you, no it's not the same, fish and frogs exist and bigfoot, the jury is still out. The fact that you're ragging on skeptics again shows your bias, and cuts into any cred you hope to have. As for the continual references to Legend meets Science, I've read the book, and I've seen the video, and it comes up very wanting.

The bottom line is that you see no difference between fish and bigfoot becaue you simply want to believe, and force others to as well. Look at your avatar and chosen display name. It's clear as day. Do you have any real evidence to back up your assertions or just the same parroting of Legend meets science and it's "experts"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

. . . And it's been pointed out time and again that the physical evidence required for a description of bigfoot is no more than that required for description of any other species (at least the multicellular ones). Why some choose to perpetuate this idea that skeptics somehow make it more difficult to prove the existence of bigfoot than the existence of other species is beyond me. It's a demonstrably false notion.

The first edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae was published in 1735. Since at least that time, the accepted standard for description of a new species has been a physical specimen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

. . . And it's been pointed out time and again that the physical evidence required for a description of bigfoot is no more than that required for description of any other species (at least the multicellular ones). Why some choose to perpetuate this idea that skeptics somehow make it more difficult to prove the existence of bigfoot than the existence of other species is beyond me. It's a demonstrably false notion.

The first edition of Linnaeus' Systema Naturae was published in 1735. Since at least that time, the accepted standard for description of a new species has been a physical specimen.

For a skeptic, would a giant leg bone with novel DNA suffice, or is a fresh intact corpse splayed on an examination table necessary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I have been married to a high level mathematician/EE forever...brilliant actually, but one thing he doesn't excel at is vision...he would puke all over this idea for even more reasons than you all state...as a CEO he would immediately cite personalities, volunteer base, no funds.

I am just offering the same vision many have and publishing some bad data now and then, in good faith, is all part of the science and discovery thing. We have many paradigm shifts, we discover later obvious, in spite of the fact some scientists got portions of the puzzle wrong. Eventually through our passed on knowledge, all nicely condensed and laid out as best we can, and available to the next and so on, the problem gets solved.

On this one perhaps my spouses anticipated answer is correct! But, I see Meldrum working that direction, and as a career scientist it seems appropriate, even if a bit lonely still.

B/c I do find some of the work produced by some in this field remarkable, and very good. A Journal prints, what the top 6 or 12 whatever articles a year? So, perhaps you could produce a very nice forum....or not!

tried to edit, but have feeling this will be a double post or something. apologies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest RedRatSnake

Guest RedRatSnake

Posted
Posted

For a skeptic, would a giant leg bone with novel DNA suffice, or is a fresh intact corpse splayed on an examination table necessary?

That would be good for me, i think all we need is something that can be unmistakeably attributed to a new species.

Tim ~ :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Jodie

Guest Jodie

Posted
Posted

tried to edit, but have feeling this will be a double post or something. apologies!

And all of this time I thought you were a man........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I guess I might have stuck my foot in it with that one. Nevermind Ape, it doesn't matter either way.

Naw you're cool, in another thread I saw her say she was a 120 pound woman in her 50's or something like that. Either way, it's all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...