georgerm Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Here we go again..........another word. proof    /pruf/ [proof] Show IPA[/u] noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. Several days ago, over 100 prints were found south of Cottage Grove, Oregon and below is the picture. Now could someone with stilts and and 17 inch rubber feet navigate through the mud, up some hills, and through the forest to fake these prints? As science progresses, we gain better ways to test evidence. Some day, prints like these will yield DNA with a hand held scanner so we can tell if they are real. Evidence must past a few test before we can rely on it...........right. Are the pictures below evidence or do they need to be tested first? The BF picture came from a trail cam as the story goes................did it? A body of evidence makes a proof.........right. Edited March 1, 2012 by georgerm
Guest Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 The thing about UFO's is they exist. They are exactly what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects. I know there are a lot of wild claims about what they are, but that does not change the fact they exist. Hair samples with unknown species, foot prints, sightings,audio, and a few photo's and vids that difficult to define one way or another, we often just make the "assumption" that it must be fake,or mistaken, since its not "definitive" proof. For a mythological beast, it sure is a persistent one, with an army of hoaxers, and thousands of people seeing bears walking around on two feet.
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Name where and when evidence was collected that definately points to bigfoot. Why is it so convincing? Why could it be no other creature or hoaxed. I found footprints convincing, specially those analyzed by specialists and forensic experts...and non-human DNA extracted from samples. The footprint evidence seems to belong to a particular undiscovered creature, which could be related to some sightings and stories about "local monsters". I'm not convinced by videos, because most of them are of the "man-on-a-apesuit-suit" kind, not clear, and they make a parody of the Patterson Gimlin video...(people see the creature and start screaming, "oh my gosh", "what's that" and then the man-on-an-apesuit just passes by..typical... Greetings K. Adam. ..
Guest Kerchak Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 The thing about UFO's is they exist. They are exactly what they are, Unidentified Flying Objects. No no no. You mean Unidentified Forest Objects.
Guest Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Rick jacobs alleged bear photo. I've never seen a black bear that looked that skinny before. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Croped_BFRO_image.jpg
Guest MikeG Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) ...because no primates exist in north america, thats a scientificly demonstrable fact. There are about 528 million primates in North America at the latest count. Mike Edited March 1, 2012 by MikeG
kitakaze Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 Even without humans, that claim in incorrect. Meet the Mexican spider monkey... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_spider_monkey
georgerm Posted March 1, 2012 Author Posted March 1, 2012 I found footprints convincing, specially those analyzed by specialists and forensic experts...and non-human DNA extracted from samples. Greetings K. Adam. .. Can you elaborate on the DNA taken and how it was done?
Guest Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 Does an average elk have enough weight behind it to leave that deep of an impression??
Guest DWA Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 On 2/14/2012 at 8:43 PM, georgerm said: Name where and when evidence was collected that definately points to bigfoot. Why is it so convincing? Why could it be no other creature or hoaxed. So many places and times you wouldn't be able to list them all nor would I. And it doesn't matter what *it could not be* but *what it might be.* One is also not looking at any particular single piece with the possible exception of PGF. And I wonder what I would think about that were that the only thing there was. My reaction in that case might be irrational - that isn't what the skeptics say it is, because that is beyond technology available in 1967 - but still, I wonder what I'd think of that film were it not a powerful leg of an unshakeable tripod of solid evidence. That must be assessed *in the aggregate,* and not piece by piece, the fatal error of the skeptics. And why we're still stuck here. On 2/15/2012 at 2:01 PM, Guest Bipedal Ape said: There is no evidence at this point. If there was then the species would be scientifically accepted and we would not be here discussing this I hope this guy didn't post here too many times. Sounds like it would have been a waste of his time.
hiflier Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, DWA said: That must be assessed *in the aggregate,* and not piece by piece, the fatal error of the skeptics. And why we're still stuck here Uh, excuse me (rises hand).......Mr. Scientist?........Sir?........It is my contention that ONE of the reasons we are stuck here is that you are apparently um, living in the past? I think it's because you have something in the way of evidence that is glaring at you right in the face and your running from it. Burying it in necro postings and otherwise CHOOSING to ignore a valuable piece of the puzzle, Science is FORWARD, if I may quote you. Not backwards which is the direction you seem to be going in order to diffuse progress. What gives with that anyway?
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 21, 2017 Posted June 21, 2017 There is none All of it is anecdotal and not based on facts. The best of which is footprints and the Patterson film. The worst is eyewitnesses , blurry films/pictures flawed or misidentified DNA samples .
Recommended Posts