Guest BFSleuth Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 As a proponent of BF without having personally seen one I agree that the eyewitness reports, when taken as a whole or as a database, even if you can say that "X" amount of them are misidentifications or hoaxes, are a substantial part of the evidence that points toward the existence of the species. Trackways are another major part of the evidence to date. Especially with the three trackways reported earlier this year it is very difficult to come up with an alternate explanation that doesn't itself begin to sound ridiculous, trackways that go for miles over terrain that a human can't negotiate in deep snow with such long strides. If you haven't had a chance to read it I would recommend Glickman's excellent article, Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon. It lays out a method of resolving the question of the phenomenon of BF sighting reports, trackways, etc. in a manner that makes a lot of sense and shows the weakness of the standard skeptic line that all sightings or all trackways are hoaxes or misidentifications. http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/docs/nasirpt.pdf
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 For the scientific community to catalog and document a new species, they will need a body or enough skeletal remains to do so. Mere DNA samples will not tell us enough. Where does this species fit within the primate field? What is it's evolutionary history, diet, etc? That why I don't place a lot of importance on the Ketchum findings. They will still leave many unanswered questions.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 1, 2012 Posted May 1, 2012 Actually, the DNA will tell a lot of the story more effectively than doing an autopsy on a body. For example, if BF is in direct lineage with homo sapiens sapiens we will be able to determine where and when we diverged. Look at the cataloguing of the Denisovan species, based on DNA from a finger bone and a tooth. This showed interbreeding between humans and Denisovan and showed up to 8% of current human DNA in SE Asian and Polynesian people is from Denisovan. This is similar to the recent finding of about 5% Neanderthal DNA in current European and Middle Eastern human DNA. DNA will more accurately classify BF than an autopsy will. Note the publication within the last two weeks of new efforts to classify plant species using DNA. It gives a more accurate assessment of where species are vis a vis other species and how they are related and which was the precursor to the other. DNA typing for taxonomy is at the cutting edge of current scientific work.
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) On 3/31/2012 at 0:34 AM, Terry said: Will there ever be a means of convincing those of us who hope there is such thing as bf that it doesn't exist? My guess is technology will do it if that's the case. t. It is by scientific definition IMPOSSIBLE to declare the nonexistence of something. (Yes even unicorns; yes even ghosts.) That requires omniscience. We don't got it, and we show that every waking moment. It already appears slam-dunk certain that the thylacine ain't extinct; that footage I am looking at is no known animal ...unless it's a thylacine. The eastern cougar lives, count on it. There appear to still be red wolves in TX. "Extinction" as a concept has appeared to me more and more over the years the height of hubris. We're too ignorant by a lot to pronounce *anything* - even zoot suits, ESPECIALLY zoot suits - gone for good. Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA
7.62 Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Well as a newbie it's actually the opposite . The more I research it the more I'm convinced they do they exist . This is excluding my personal reason for believing my friend when he told me he came face to face with one . Or all the photos he showed me.. If none of that had happened above. I believe just the research I have done in this short time convinces me they exist .
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 I'm willing to accept the falsification of any theory if it's done in what one might call a proper manner. Unfortunately, all supporters of the nonexistence of Sasquatch can come up with is "We don't have a body yet, therefore they're not real." or "I haven't seen any clear videos yet, therefore they're not real." It's poor science in their part, and it's driven by the desire to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Interestingly, they wouldn't even be in denial if they didn't find the evidence somewhat compelling.
xspider1 Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Proof of such will never, ever be, Terry. As has probably been mentioned above, no one can prove a negative. What I wonder is why so many are intent on trying to prove that Bigfoot do not exist in the first place. What is it about theses creatures that bothers many folks to the point of being in 100% denial and even to crusade against those who feel differently? Surely there are worse things in the world to worry about.. 3
Twist Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 In no way do I feel crusaded against here as a believer. I come here knowing this is a well run/moderated forum that promotes civil "debate". I "debate" with people whose opinions differ with mine, proponent and skeptic alike. It's a means of being exposed to a different point of view/new information. I wouldnt show up to a rally and expect the other side not to show up with signs that oppose mine. Expressing opinions naturally leads to opposing views and disagreements. One side should not claim the victim role when both sides are being equally stubborn to give any sort of ground. 2
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) One might wonder what value there is in trying to discuss a subject with those who are denial, and hence, aren't interested in truth. The logic behind the quote is flawed, but there's an allegorical truth to it that ironically holds true for many so-called "skeptics". Edited June 18, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) Double post* Edited June 18, 2017 by OntarioSquatch
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 7 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said: One might wonder what value there is in trying to discuss a subject with those who are denial, and hence, aren't interested in truth. The logic behind the quote is flawed, but there's an allegorical truth to it that ironically holds true for many so-called "skeptics". It's not really ironical; it's *science.* The problem with Randi is that he approaches this the way he does comprehensive charlatanism. Which this isn't. It's zoology.
MIB Posted June 18, 2017 Moderator Posted June 18, 2017 14 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said: The logic behind the quote is flawed, but there's an allegorical truth to it that ironically holds true for many so-called "skeptics". 1) Right: reverse the logic ... those who DISBELIEVE without reason also cannot be convinced by reason. Scoftics and denialists are a waste of oxygen. 2) The statement fails to address those who do indeed "believe" with very good reason: personal experience or substantive analysis of available data. It does not address them because, of course .. it can't, with integrity, without having to change positions. MIB 1
PBeaton Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 On 6/15/2017 at 7:28 PM, xspider1 said: Proof of such will never, ever be, Terry. As has probably been mentioned above, no one can prove a negative. What I wonder is why so many are intent on trying to prove that Bigfoot do not exist in the first place. What is it about theses creatures that bothers many folks to the point of being in 100% denial and even to crusade against those who feel differently? Surely there are worse things in the world to worry about.. xspider1, It has always baffled me as to why a complete skeptic would even bother bein' on a bigfoot discussion forum, haha ! I can understand folks on the fence, or skeptics...but a few here...haha ! I wonder if they start threads like these on unicorn forums or minotaur forums ? Pat... 2
FarArcher Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 What will it take to prove that there's no such thing as a Bigfoot? Too late. I had a meeting engagement with this thing - so the possibility that they don't exist - is nil. 2
xspider1 Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) What will it take for more people to realize that they don't know everything already? To paraphrase Aristotle: 'The more we know, the more we <should> realize how much we don't know.' I can sort of understand many folks thinking that all Bigfoot sightings are either fakes, hallucinations, or the result of insanity because it is a very extraordinary subject for sure; but those opinions don't mean much to those who have actually seen one nor to anyone who believes even 1 witness or 1 piece of evidence. Edited June 19, 2017 by xspider1 2
Recommended Posts