Jump to content

Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, OK, there.

 

Glad I can rely on you.  Which is....um, why again...?

 

When I rank "people whose opinions are worth listening to" on a topic, knowing nothing else but this about them, lowest on the totem pole are those whose Curiosity Meters appear to be flatlinin'.

 

Which is every mainstream scientist from which I have heard negatively about sasquatch.  IT IS NOT THE JOB OF SCIENTISTS TO JUST PUSH THE KNOWN.    Any scientist who considers anything unproven unreal has just disqualified him/herself from the lists of people to be taken seriously.  And that is every mainstream scientist from which I have heard negatively about sasquatch.  Usually, within the next three sentences they give me four reasons to discount everything they say.  Oh, I think, you just don't think about this.  Sorry to wake you; I'll go find someone who does.

 

If you know less about this than me, I've sussed you before a paragraph is on the screen.  And one thing I have sussed here is:

 

I know how to determine whether a scientist's opinion on this topic is legit, or can be balled up and three-pointed.  And you don't.

 

Because (among other things) I know that "real animals"  is a phrase that really means "animals that no one knew were real until someone discovered them."

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I know which documentary that's from. It's actually been proven that these so called dermal ridges that run vertically on casts are casting artifacts and not actual dermal ridges http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

 

They do look very realistic though. Realistic enough to fool the "bigfoot experts"  :)

 

Ah, I think I'll go with the Professor of Anthropology on the dermal ridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah, I think I'll go with the Professor of Anthropology on the dermal ridges.

 

 

It will never cease to amaze me, the bigfoot skeptics' conviction that they know more than all them scientificalaters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, hmmm, not satisfied. There are too many BF stories out there, and yet no 'BF psycosis' classification, where there should be. We are talking clear sightings, and clear interactions, from American Indians, Austrailia, Vietnam, Russia capture and breeding with, etc etc etc...My Avitar is by a famous 15th century painter, of a 'Woodrose' gigantic forest being, aparently there is a story behind that. (Carpathian Mountaincs?)

There are just too many people 'seeing' a large, furry Anthropoid, sometimes they are saying these things are 12 ft tall! I don't see how this specific world-wide phenomena could be non other than 'circumstantial evidence' proving that some large hairy anthropoid is out there. Wether this youtube is a hoax or that is, does not matter, the overwhelming body of evidence points toward a hominid, not a gian lizard, not a giant toad, not a giant rat etc etc. So there! There is no scientific proof of 'hoaxers' en mass. :wild:

Edited by Wag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet that if we laid out the "evidence" for dragons, there wouldn't be enough to interest most of us in a Dragon Website.  Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

It's all a matter of context DWA if you lived in the time that dragons were "real" it might matter to you.

You could be living the mythology of the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SoFla

I know there are a lot of people out there who are full of crap-I understand this, I've seen in at my job as a musician over the years, where people would come up to me and tell me they used to play with this or that band, wrote this or that song and I would believe them. hell I even had a fake Jeff Beck who was hanging around town PLAY with me one night on stage. I also had an experience when I saw a UFO and was inspired enough to write a song about my encounter. I also sent that song to Art Bell and he posted it on his website back around 2000;. Then one night I was listening to Coast To Coast and some guy called in and "explained his UFO encounter" by using my exact words and descriptions even as to how I judged the size and shape of it with my hand-the guy was full of it and stole MY STORY word for word-it was pretty amazing to hear live on the radio. So I know that people are capable of doing that stuff. Me? I would never. When I see some of these accounts on YT you can watch these people and KNOW whether they are lying or not-we somehow just know. Just like how so many of us, no MOST ALL of us knew that Dyer's story was bunk. There is a built-in BS detector we humans have been given. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, hmmm, not satisfied. There are too many BF stories out there, and yet no 'BF psycosis' classification, where there should be. We are talking clear sightings, and clear interactions, from American Indians, Austrailia, Vietnam, Russia capture and breeding with, etc etc etc...My Avitar is by a famous 15th century painter, of a 'Woodrose' gigantic forest being, aparently there is a story behind that. (Carpathian Mountaincs?)

There are just too many people 'seeing' a large, furry Anthropoid, sometimes they are saying these things are 12 ft tall! I don't see how this specific world-wide phenomena could be non other than 'circumstantial evidence' proving that some large hairy anthropoid is out there. Wether this youtube is a hoax or that is, does not matter, the overwhelming body of evidence points toward a hominid, not a gian lizard, not a giant toad, not a giant rat etc etc. So there! There is no scientific proof of 'hoaxers' en mass. :wild:

You talk as if the global distribution of the BF myth somehow lends it credibility. Actually, one of the famous BF proponent Phds, Grover Krantz himself,  seems to disagree with you on this matter:

 

"Some people have gathered stories about bipedal, hairy monsters from almost all parts of the world, evidently under the mistaken impression that this strengthens the argument for their existence. Actually it does just the opposite--the more widespread a land animal is claimed to be, the less likely it is to be real. A truly worldwide distribution occurs only for man, his parasites, and his domesticates. This does not prove a worldwide Sasquatch does not exist, but it makes one wonder. Some reputable scientists would study a possible primate in North America and parts of Eurasia, but when you throw in South America, Africa, and Australia just for good measure they will back off. The possibility of multiple species of such animals might avoid this problem, but it only serves to raise another. For science to have missed one large species of unknown primate is difficult enough to swallow. To claim there are still more of them only strains to the breaking point whatever credibility there may have been."

 

Which does, though, lend credibility to the notion that a large, humanoid man-beast type creature is common to the human experience. That is to say there is something in the human psyche that makes us create monsters. We enjoy them. They titillate us. They make for great campfire stories and cautionary tales to keep children in line. The fact that almost every human culture on the globe has a similar one is, in fact, a very strong detractor from the possibility of there being a real creature at the center of it. 

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SoFla

Personally after studying the PG Film through a few different lenses I can not see how someone can dismiss it's validity out of hand. I've watched a lot of scientists and I watched Bill Munns' presentation and for someone to then just say " they don't know what they're talking about-it's total BS, why Bob Heronimous said..." these are people who will never be convinced of anything that they don't want to believe. These are same type of people who still believe that Hussein was behind the WTC attacks, that there still are weapons of mass destruction buried somewhere in Iraq, that Bush and Cheney, and Rummy and Rice were and still ARE right. I compare them to politicos on the right for a specific reason-because of a LOT of reading up and studying, it's a similar phenomena-similar personality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wudewasa

Thanks for the clarification of what everyone think justifies something as evidence.  I would refer to the recent accounts as anecdotal evidence, while the millennia old stories as legends.  Check my screen name, I know the legends of my ancestors and they are extremely important to me.

 

This creature isn't a bear like animal or a relic squid.  This creature purportedly has a bipedal, hairy appearance that is somewhat human in description.  For myself, this is hard to believe without actually encountering one or someone obtaining a body.

 

Call me what you want, but I'm being honest, and appreciate everyone else reciprocating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all a matter of context DWA if you lived in the time that dragons were "real" it might matter to you.

You could be living the mythology of the future!

Well, they WERE real! Land dragons. There is to my knowledge, no one talking about dragons, people are not seeing them fly through the air, academic biologists are not stating they have evidence of them. tyrannosaurus.jpg

http://prehistoricreatures.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/tyrannosaurus.jpg

 

 

There is Mothman, I've heard about Peridactles or something here and there, Nessi and various lake monsters, Ghosts and paranormal etc. UFO's, flying saucers. I've probably missed a few. None of these, well maybe Ghosts and UFO's have a huge BF style following.

 

One American myth seems to be those Wolf-man, upright walking wolves, but that might go back to Europe, so White people and Dog-people. I don't thing American Indians get into that. Then the European folk stories, not sure if any mention the Woodrose that I've heard, although there is obvious evidence (see my Avitar) that they were known about, but funny they have not been 'mythologised' like Vampires and Wolfmen. Maybe because they are not a myth?

 

It's all a matter of context DWA if you lived in the time that dragons were "real" it might matter to you.

You could be living the mythology of the future!

Well, they WERE real! Land dragons. There is to my knowledge, no one talking about dragons, people are not seeing them fly through the air, academic biologists are not stating they have evidence of them. And they are not universal around the world, the same 'type' of creature. tyrannosaurus.jpg

http://prehistoricreatures.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/tyrannosaurus.jpg

 

 

There is Mothman, I've heard about Peridactles or something here and there, Nessi and various lake monsters, Ghosts and paranormal etc. UFO's, flying saucers. I've probably missed a few. None of these, well maybe Ghosts and UFO's have a huge BF style following.

 

One American myth seems to be those Wolf-man, upright walking wolves, but that might go back to Europe, so White people and Dog-people. I don't thing American Indians get into that. Then the European folk stories, not sure if any mention the Woodrose that I've heard, although there is obvious evidence (see my Avitar) that they were known about, but funny they have not been 'mythologised' like Vampires and Wolfmen. Maybe because they are not a myth?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cervelo

Well that's kinda my point there's quite clearly real evidence of "dragons" that survive to this day reptiles, birds ect. and mountains of fossil evidence.

So what's more likley a relic population of "dragons" somewhere unexplored by modern man or a 8' tall undocumented ape/man hanging out apparently around every corner of the North American continent?

Just a little goggling...might all be BS but there seem to be quite a few reports out there...

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/04/stunning-evidence-of-living-pterodactyls-2064568.html

Edited by Cervelo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something really funny. These squatchers or whatever, (this site) can't seem to agree that this is a humaoid leg, which it clearly is, even though I posted 'proof' of anatomy. Some think its a moose, actually most of em. I have not looked to see if they are skeptics or not, but it would be an interesting study. So even when something is clearly 'one thing', people looking at the evidence make up something to fit thier paradym. I'd day more than 50% are skeptics off the top. That would explain 'the thinkin'' on the subject matter. But I don't know.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38781-sasquatch-leg/page-3#entry735804

 

 

So, if they all be skeptics, it would further prove that 'skeptics' don't wanna believe nuthing outside a small paradym (which is normal).



Here is something really funny. These squatchers or whatever, (this site) can't seem to agree that this is a humaoid leg, which it clearly is, even though I posted 'proof' of anatomy. Some think its a moose, actually most of em. I have not looked to see if they are skeptics or not, but it would be an interesting study. So even when something is clearly 'one thing', people looking at the evidence make up something to fit thier paradym. I'd day more than 50% are skeptics off the top. That would explain 'the thinkin'' on the subject matter. But I don't know.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/38781-sasquatch-leg/page-3#entry735804

 

 

So, if they all be skeptics, it would further prove that 'skeptics' don't wanna believe nuthing outside a small paradym (which is normal).That would be easier to prove than some non-existent psycological phenomina of Bigfootery, Wildman, etc....

 

She-WANG! :aikido:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...