Guest longtabber PE Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparateas physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example. The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate statistical analyses. And, it is not all GIGO. >>>There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparate as physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example. Sure, IF there is something to measure them against >>>The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate statistical analyses. OK, let me ask you this- how much validity do you put in a "what if" deduction based in an "it could be" dataset derived from an "it looks like" examination? >>And, it is not all GIGO. In light of the above, then I'm missing something- what else is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yetifan Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 longtabberPE wrote: OK, let me ask you this- how much validity do you put in a "what if" deduction based in an "it could be" dataset derived from an "it looks like" examination? Ya know, I WAS looking for a new signature. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 28, 2008 BFF Patron Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) >>>There are many measurable constructs, hypotheses and studies in social sciences in fields as disparateas physical anthropology, psychometrics and psychophysics, for example. Sure, IF there is something to measure them against >>>The hard/soft science dichotomy has nothing to do with refuting the null hypothesis or accepting the obverse, which any of these fields can do with well constructed studies and appropriate statistical analyses. OK, let me ask you this- how much validity do you put in a "what if" deduction based in an "it could be" dataset derived from an "it looks like" examination? >>And, it is not all GIGO. In light of the above, then I'm missing something- what else is it? All science starts with a "what if?" as do all hypotheses, there is nothing contradictory about it, and all hypotheses are formulated on some form of "it could be" and how many times have scientists seen an "it looks like" moment only to serendipitously discover either a new species, new branch of science, new whatever? Edited February 28, 2008 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hi Ya know, I WAS looking for a new signature. Thanks. :coverlaugh: 8O :rolleyes22: Peace Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Longtabber: You said "They are evidence alright- just useless evidence leading nowhere. So, how much useless evidence does it take to establish a fact ( BF exists- Y,N) and then what part of this "evidence" has survived any objective scrutiny or are we just supposed to accept it on its face "just because?" And you love to say: "BF live BF Memorex Its that simple, if its NOT "live"- its memorex ( no 3rd option)" You say there are no facts, no testable ingredients to prove "BF live". You deny that there are testable ingredients to prove "BF Memorex" (the suit) True of False in that film. You put all the burden of proof on one option, as if the other needs no proof at all. Sorry, my friend, but proof cuts both ways, and there are scientific issues that reasonably can be researched, studied, and used to deduce or determine probability, likelyness, and maybe even conclusive fact, on at least one side of this fence. And if one side has potential for rigorous scientific study, (based of facts, real physical materials and real physics) that renders a conclusion for one of your choices above, than the strength of that conclusion on one side is inversely applied to the other choice. Ergo: If you can prove what's in the film is not a suit, then it's real. Now, I haven't proven it yet, but I took some time to refresh myself on what I've posted in the last two months. I studied the motion and physical dynamics of cloth materials. I studied the motion and physical dynamics of foamed plastics potentially used for padding. I studied the interaction of light and shadow on fur/hair masses based on their bristled or erect posture as opposed to their laying down or shingling posture. I studied the physical dynamics of mechanical devices to animate fabricated prosthetic appendages. I studied the physical dynamics of bladders using air or fluids as the pressure transfer medium for accomplishing simulations of animation in costumes. I studied the physiological response of humans to the particular circumstances of wearing a formfitting and heavily insulated suit which retains body heat, inpedes motion, and retards traditional body cooling mechanisms. I studied the architecture of costume closures as they impact upon the mobility of said costume. I studied the functionality of operating this device (a costume) in a wilderness setting as opposed to in a controlled studio setting, in terms of necessary support personnal and their job performance criteria. I studied the capacity of human dexterity in relation to the prospect of dressing one's self in a suit and grooming same, and concluded some functional processes cannot be done by the suited person without assistance from a person outside the suit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was studying physics, chemistry, biology, human anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics. The fundamental flaw of your passionate arguments is that you ignore all the scientific potential to prove one of your two options as true or false, in the stated circumstance (the PG Film). And proving one option true or false would, by your reasoning, prove the inverse for the other. Prove one true, the other is false. Prove one false, the other is true. So allow me to apply your logic to this: There are many kinds of creatures - True There are many kinds of costume suits - True Is there a known creature exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No. is there a known costume suit exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No. Seems to be a pretty level playing field here, and so if I can use physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics, as applied to such existing and tangible substances as cloth, fiber, resins, foamed plastics, metal parts, and various fabricated structures based on these tangibles, and thus prove that one option can not exist ( a costume of appearance and functionality equivalent to what is in the film), than the other option is the only one standing. Worth a try, don't you think, to maybe get us all out of the quagmire? :coverlaugh: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Killain Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Getting back to flabby rather than flappy, I think it's risky to attempt to compare the physiology of a species that inhabits moderate climates with one that quite possibly (if it exists) inhabits a climate that can involve a considerably hostile winter season. If we don't see the same amount of flab on a jungle-dwelling ape as we see on a purported northwest ape, it seems that it would be pretty simple to draw at least a hypothetical explanation. I wonder if we were to place brown bears in Africa, would we see them put on the autumn fat after a generation or two of adaptation? In any case, for anyone to state that they doubt a "wild" creature would display excess fat, is ignoring our very own bears, racoons and porcupines. p.s. As for "intimidating" responses, the continued use of prefacing utterances that imply a superior exasperation at having to "once again" explain that which should be logically apparent to any child, might appear intimidating. I simply find them boorish and unnecessary. K Edited February 28, 2008 by Killain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Hi For anyone like me that didn't understand that word ,, i looked it up (quagmire) Land with a soft muddy surface. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament. Peace Brothers Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 28, 2008 BFF Patron Share Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) Getting back to flabby rather than flappy, I think it's risky to attempt to compare the physiology of a species that inhabits moderate climates with one that quite possibly (if it exists) inhabits a climate that can involve a considerably hostile winter season. If we don't see the same amount of flab on a jungle-dwelling ape as we see on a purported northwest ape, it seems that it would be pretty simple to draw at least a hypothetical explanation. I wonder if we were to place brown bears in Africa, would we see them put on the autumn fat after a generation or two of adaptation? In any case, for anyone to state that they doubt a "wild" creature would display excess fat, is ignoring our very own bears, racoons and porcupines. K Man I've got some ultrahusky size raccoons around here and Bill you are welcome to study them any time you can get them out of the bigfoot suit :coverlaugh: Edited February 28, 2008 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Killian: Thanks for the reference. I was thinking of specifically a mammal that is acclimated to a temperate to artic environment, where the winters are harsh, and that buildups of fatty tissue in the fall might be a wise survival strategy. Maybe I didn't articulate it so well in the earlier notes. And as you pointed out, a tropical dwelling mammal would likely not tend to have such fatty reserves or any inclination to build them up. Tim: Thanks for the "quagmire" definition. The footprints are in the first part and all of us are in the second. Bipedalist: Regards getting the raccoons out of their bigfoot suits, maybe I should ask Bob H for advice, he being so expert at it by now. :coverlaugh: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtabber PE Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Longtabber:You said "They are evidence alright- just useless evidence leading nowhere. So, how much useless evidence does it take to establish a fact ( BF exists- Y,N) and then what part of this "evidence" has survived any objective scrutiny or are we just supposed to accept it on its face "just because?" And you love to say: "BF live BF Memorex Its that simple, if its NOT "live"- its memorex ( no 3rd option)" You say there are no facts, no testable ingredients to prove "BF live". You deny that there are testable ingredients to prove "BF Memorex" (the suit) True of False in that film. You put all the burden of proof on one option, as if the other needs no proof at all. Sorry, my friend, but proof cuts both ways, and there are scientific issues that reasonably can be researched, studied, and used to deduce or determine probability, likelyness, and maybe even conclusive fact, on at least one side of this fence. And if one side has potential for rigorous scientific study, (based of facts, real physical materials and real physics) that renders a conclusion for one of your choices above, than the strength of that conclusion on one side is inversely applied to the other choice. Ergo: If you can prove what's in the film is not a suit, then it's real. Now, I haven't proven it yet, but I took some time to refresh myself on what I've posted in the last two months. I studied the motion and physical dynamics of cloth materials. I studied the motion and physical dynamics of foamed plastics potentially used for padding. I studied the interaction of light and shadow on fur/hair masses based on their bristled or erect posture as opposed to their laying down or shingling posture. I studied the physical dynamics of mechanical devices to animate fabricated prosthetic appendages. I studied the physical dynamics of bladders using air or fluids as the pressure transfer medium for accomplishing simulations of animation in costumes. I studied the physiological response of humans to the particular circumstances of wearing a formfitting and heavily insulated suit which retains body heat, inpedes motion, and retards traditional body cooling mechanisms. I studied the architecture of costume closures as they impact upon the mobility of said costume. I studied the functionality of operating this device (a costume) in a wilderness setting as opposed to in a controlled studio setting, in terms of necessary support personnal and their job performance criteria. I studied the capacity of human dexterity in relation to the prospect of dressing one's self in a suit and grooming same, and concluded some functional processes cannot be done by the suited person without assistance from a person outside the suit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was studying physics, chemistry, biology, human anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics. The fundamental flaw of your passionate arguments is that you ignore all the scientific potential to prove one of your two options as true or false, in the stated circumstance (the PG Film). And proving one option true or false would, by your reasoning, prove the inverse for the other. Prove one true, the other is false. Prove one false, the other is true. So allow me to apply your logic to this: There are many kinds of creatures - True There are many kinds of costume suits - True Is there a known creature exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No. is there a known costume suit exactly like what we see in the PG Film? - No. Seems to be a pretty level playing field here, and so if I can use physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics, as applied to such existing and tangible substances as cloth, fiber, resins, foamed plastics, metal parts, and various fabricated structures based on these tangibles, and thus prove that one option can not exist ( a costume of appearance and functionality equivalent to what is in the film), than the other option is the only one standing. Worth a try, don't you think, to maybe get us all out of the quagmire? :coverlaugh: Bill I'll give it a go >>>You say there are no facts, no testable ingredients to prove "BF live". You deny that there are testable ingredients to prove "BF Memorex" (the suit) True of False in that film. You put all the burden of proof on one option, as if the other needs no proof at all. Its not denial, its a fact- there is only one burden of proof and thats on the ones offering the theory ( its not a 1 to 1 swap) If there is something that can actually be tested and measured- I'm all for it- the question is what is this "testable" material- what tests and what results and how qualified are they? Lets see it. >>>Sorry, my friend, but proof cuts both ways, Theres only 1 standard of proof- it is proof or it isnt, I'm not aware of any other ( the question then becomes did one meet the burden and in the case of BF- the burden is 100%- not 99%) BF either exists or not- "proof" isnt a probability model. >>>there are scientific issues that reasonably can be researched, studied, and used to deduce or determine probability, likelyness, and maybe even conclusive fact, on at least one side of this fence. OK, what do we have that can be scrutinized, the tests validated, the results repeatable and are conclusive? See, probability and proof are at opposite ends of the spectrum- probability is just that- proof is an absolute- neither will stand in for the other >>>And if one side has potential for rigorous scientific study, (based of facts, real physical materials and real physics) that renders a conclusion for one of your choices above, than the strength of that conclusion on one side is inversely applied to the other choice. Potential is NOT "production" and one cannot test potential- only production >>>Ergo: If you can prove what's in the film is not a suit, then it's real. Wrong, the film subject isnt provable to be real UNLESS and UNTIL its compared to a REAL and known sample of BF- if its not a real BF, its a suit. The film subject can be compared against a suit, tie, double breasted, Rolex or a goldfish but until its measured against a known- it isnt "proved" to be anything. >>>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I was studying physics, chemistry, biology, human anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics. You might have been comparing what you see against those but what you have is subjective. Theres no way to definitiavely narrow that field. Any findings based on that film wouldnt pass muster at a grade school science fair much less a legitimate review because theres no way to test or validate the premise. Its a "looks like" assessment based on an "opinion" shored up by "wishful thinking" using a pseudoscientific evaluation. Validation is only accomplished by controlled testing and evaluating against knowns. Theres no way to validate any of your findings so they wouldnt even be allowed in the door at any legitimate scientific review. >>>The fundamental flaw of your passionate arguments is that you ignore all the scientific potential potential is an abstract and relative concept- it cant be put under a microscope. It can only be estimated and even thats a WAG because in this case, there isnt a shred of verified evidence to even base probability on. >>>And proving one option true or false would, by your reasoning, prove the inverse for the other. Prove one true, the other is false. Prove one false, the other is true. In this case, that applies ( BF exists or not)- how does one define "a little bit pregnant" and "almost dead"?- the same standards apply. Its one or the other. >>>Seems to be a pretty level playing field here, and so if I can use physics, chemistry, physiology, anatomy, human ergonomics, and optics, as applied to such existing and tangible substances as cloth, fiber, resins, foamed plastics, metal parts, and various fabricated structures based on these tangibles, and thus prove that one option can not exist ( a costume of appearance and functionality equivalent to what is in the film), than the other option is the only one standing. If you can do that with the evidence available to any legitimate scientific standard, I'll bow to you and eat every word I said. >>>Worth a try, don't you think, to maybe get us all out of the quagmire? Everythings worth a try- its the results I'm dubious about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Killain Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Killian:Thanks for the reference. I was thinking of specifically a mammal that is acclimated to a temperate to artic environment, where the winters are harsh, and that buildups of fatty tissue in the fall might be a wise survival strategy. Maybe I didn't articulate it so well in the earlier notes. And as you pointed out, a tropical dwelling mammal would likely not tend to have such fatty reserves or any inclination to build them up. Tim: Thanks for the "quagmire" definition. The footprints are in the first part and all of us are in the second. Bipedalist: Regards getting the raccoons out of their bigfoot suits, maybe I should ask Bob H for advice, he being so expert at it by now. :coverlaugh: Bill Bill Actually, I was referring to Apeman's assertion that it was doubtful a "wild" creature would display excess fat. I was agreeing with your analysis that the figure appeared to be well proportioned. K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longtabber PE Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 p.s. As for "intimidating" responses, the continued use of prefacing utterances that imply a superior exasperation at having to "once again" explain that which should be logically apparent to any child, might appear intimidating. I simply find them boorish and unnecessary. K Interesting, I have the same opinion about those responses claiming to be legitimate science and a valid premise that arent. I guess that makes me the yang to the yin huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Apeman Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 In any case, for anyone to state that they doubt a "wild" creature would display excess fat, is ignoring our very own bears, racoons and porcupines. Just in case that was directed at me, I did not say that I doubted any wild animal might display excess fat. What I said was that a fat and flabby wild ape stretches my imagination. I hope you and others realize the difference. And I completely agree that if it were true (that she has rolls of fat), the climate is a likely hypothetical explanation (to some degree). But don't forget that we are generally biased by urban or suburban (overfed) raccoons and to a lesser extent bears, and that at least some apes live in places a little colder than most of North American during at least a large part of our year. The tropics aren't necessarily always warm, especially at high elevation. Apeman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 Longtabber: "If you can do that with the evidence available to any legitimate scientific standard, I'll bow to you and eat every word I said." And as a gesture of mutual consideration, I'll buy all the A-1 Sauce you need to make 'um tasty. :coverlaugh: Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 1) this is a genuine BF2) this is a suit Seriously- theres not a 3rd option- it is literally true or false ( and that simple, cut and dried) I think it's a genuine BF wearing a suit. Oh, and nobody has proven to me that Longtabber PE exists, therefore he doesn't. Obiwan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts