Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Wait! I have evidence that T-rex may be worth taking seriously! http://wallpoper.com/images/00/30/83/52/tyrannosaurus-rex_00308352.jpg That little guy is ON TV. If he's seen one...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 You are not comprehending that people can go to this museum, and pull a drawer out containing eight male IBW, and there is a drawer right below with eight female IBWs? And further you can't see the difference between that, and the current state of Bigfoot being as yet uncategorized? For further reading, I would suggest this paper, which does cite absence of evidence as a factor in evidence of absence. http://www.ace-eco.org/vol3/iss2/art3/ACE-ECO-2008-254.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wish the vast majority of people here who agree with DWA (they must do, he said so himself) would hurry up and get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) The number of sightings itself, makes the idea that there is a Bigfoot less likely. If there were 10 sightings in the last 40 years, at least you could say Bigfoot is an elusive creature, and we need to go look for it. However, there are 10,000 sightings, in places full of people, on 6 lane divided highways, in freeway rest-areas, on porches in trailer parks, on hillsides in plain view of 100 people, and in state parks crawling with recreational tourists. Animals don't hang out in places like that and not get nabbed. Every time a sighting is added, it means that the idea of Bigfoot existing is less likely. It is not an elusive creature, there are too many sightings to label them 'elusive', therefore Bigfoot should be brought in. Bigfoot has not been brought in therefore, the sightings are an anomaly. Exactly! If BF is everywhere...it is nowhere! If sightings were limited or concentrated to areas like the PNW or Alaska, for example, places where they potentially could remain hidden and maybe have a food supply to support them year round, then that would be one thing. Still a stretch, but there are vast stretches of forest out here, with very little access. But when you start seeing sightings in all parts of NA, all with similar attributes and, in some areas, in high concentrations, then you know it is all BS. One would really really have to set aside all reason and logic to believe there is a population of large bipedal primates wandering around in New York or Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Ontario. It is just not possible for this to be true AND for these things to have remained uncatalogued by the scientific establishment in 2013. Edited June 12, 2013 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 The ivorybill is extinct, you dodos! Sez who? Scientists? You don't believe them, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wish the vast majority of people here who agree with DWA (they must do, he said so himself) would hurry up and get involved. Where'd I say that? How much of what you're saying is what you want to believe? (Most.) I was led here by evidence. Denial, however, must be a far greater motivator of persons than I thought. I can't tell whether some of you guys want badly to convince us...or want even worse for us to convince you (which short of a body won't happen for you, so why bother?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Well, I'd like to chime in and say that the BF species ALREADY may be on fossil record. We might not know it yet. To say it is not, without knowing what BF is, is a bit of a leap of faith there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Umm Drew, just want to point out you couldn't even get a part of a Sasquatch into one of them t-ni-nee little drawers. Man, you're scaring me. Edited June 12, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Well, I'd like to chime in and say that the BF species ALREADY may be on fossil record. We might not know it yet. To say it is not, without knowing what BF is, is a bit of a leap of faith there. A tres major leap, given that - just to me - two plausible candidates (Gigantopithecus and Paranthropus) already exist. Besides which, a species has to be confirmed and its skeletal structure minutely examined before any fossil progenitors can be identified. It's just putting the cart before the horse. Fossils say nothing about what exists now, except insofar as they can be linked to species already identified and examined. Umm Drew, just want to point out you couldn't even get a part of Sasquatch into one of them t-ni-nee little drawers. Man, you're scaring me. WSA, dems were Painted Pileateds. Hoax, ever' one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wish the vast majority of people here who agree with DWA (they must do, he said so himself) would hurry up and get involved. I just bought an H1 Zoom to record sound to sync with my DSLR. I think my first test of this device should be to record the sounds of crickets to have ready to use in response to a post such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Why would you want to respond to Llawgoch that way? Puzzling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Umm Drew, just want to point out you couldn't even get a part of a Sasquatch into one of them t-ni-nee little drawers. Man, you're scaring me. I think all that is represented for Gigantopithecus is a few teeth... and these drawer sized fossils have lead to speculation that that big guy was bipedal. And I think the first fossilized teeth were originally discovered when someone spotted the teeth in an apothecary shop. . Edited June 12, 2013 by summitwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Umm Drew, just want to point out you couldn't even get a part of a Sasquatch into one of them t-ni-nee little drawers. Man, you're scaring me. I think all that is represented for Gigantopithecus is a few teeth... and these drawer sized fossils have lead to speculation that that big guy was bipedal. And I think the first fossilized teeth were originally discovered when someone spotted the teeth in an apothecary shop. . Well, a large suitcase or so of teeth, and a jaw bone. Given what we know about bipedal primates, it's reasonable to make that speculation based on the jaw. But taking Drew's point, it's not really that much more fanciful to speculate that all these footprints and sightings might be somehow related to whatever left that jawbone and those teeth than it is to speculate that a bird with a three-foot wingspan that almost no one ever sees, hears or gets crapped on by is still around just because some of them are dead in a drawer. If there were ten sightings, I'd dismiss it out of hand. OK, I'd say: this isn't really interesting me until you give me more than ten people. Congratulations on not understanding what motivates real biologists to decide to go look for real biology. Oh. I read those sightings. They're all bogus. Scientists looking very hard for something, turning very obvious pileated woodpeckers into an extinct species. Happens, a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wish the vast majority of people here who agree with DWA (they must do, he said so himself) would hurry up and get involved. Well, I haven't personally gotten too involved b/c I feel DWA is handling himself just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) So, ivorybill sighters are just deluding themselves about an extinct bird they want badly to be real, worse than most people on the planet, in fact. Their own expertise indicts them. (That guy crying emotionally disqualifies his sighting, right there. Toss it.) Forgot to mention that despair over ever seeing an ivorybill almost certainly caused all these people to consume large quantities of alcohol, which was almost certainly occurring right when they saw the bird. I am betting that in more than one case, hard liquor sloshing into their eyes from a despairing belt taken at the critical moment blinded them to the obvious pileated field marks. Combine credentials; extreme desire; alcohol; and the one-upmanship endemic to our species, and you have a sure-fire recipe for humdrum ornithologists to inflate their status over humdrum birders to that of Rock Stars by pretending they saw something ultimately cool. Slam dunk. (I'm just trying to help some folks here see how their words read to me.) (edited to make it REALLY sound bigfoot skeptic) Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts