MIB Posted July 24, 2013 Moderator Posted July 24, 2013 Uh ... lowland gorilla, 1847, mountain gorilla, 1902 ... <I think>. There's some "devil in the details", though, because I'm not sure if those dates represent first acknowledged scientific publication, the collection of "stuff" that lead to the papers, or actual acceptance. (As we know from a certain DNA paper, those are far from the same thing. ) MIB
Guest Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 Paul de Chaillu set off in 1855 to bring in complete specimens of lowland gorillas. The animals were already accepted as real at that point, but the amount of material available for study was quite limited and there was practically no understanding of their behavior or any reliable accounts what they were like in the wild before he published. Interestingly, as recently as 2008 about 125,000 lowland gorillas were discovered in the Congo that nobody (except for locals) seemed to know were there. They couldn't find the gorillas to count since they were shy and good at hiding from humans, so they counted nests and extrapolated. This after a census of an area covering about 18,000 square miles. That's less than half the size of the Ouachitas.
Guest DWA Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 ^^^[rimshot] So much of the skeptical takes on this topic seem implicitly prefaced with (if not explicitly stated): "This is absurd. Given that fact..." One couldn't come up with a more pristinely exact analogy. In a number of small hamlets in our South (and other places), the locals know, but also know what happens when people talk about it. So they don't. And unlike the case with our gorillas, no serious scientists, funded to find out, show up to ask the right questions. Look at the Ouachitas from the Talimena; look at just about any remaining swatch of gorilla habitat from the air. One won't see that huge a difference ^^ It is quite remarkable that, as you say, people have been seeing these things walking around for hundreds if not thousands of years, yet no one has ever been able to prove they exist. I agree, that is quite fascinating... Actually, it's not fascinating. It's one of the most boringly explainable facts I have ever heard about nature. Watch: Nobody's trying to prove it in any serious way, except people that get out a smattering of days a year on their own dime. There. Nothing fascinating about that. Just obvious.
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 24, 2013 Posted July 24, 2013 ^^^[rimshot] So much of the skeptical takes on this topic seem implicitly prefaced with (if not explicitly stated): "This is absurd. Given that fact..." One couldn't come up with a more pristinely exact analogy. In a number of small hamlets in our South (and other places), the locals know, but also know what happens when people talk about it. So they don't. And unlike the case with our gorillas, no serious scientists, funded to find out, show up to ask the right questions. Look at the Ouachitas from the Talimena; look at just about any remaining swatch of gorilla habitat from the air. One won't see that huge a difference Actually, it's not fascinating. It's one of the most boringly explainable facts I have ever heard about nature. Watch: Nobody's trying to prove it in any serious way, except people that get out a smattering of days a year on their own dime. There. Nothing fascinating about that. Just obvious. You really don't think its odd that even in the last 100 years not a body, bone, scrap of flesh hasn't turned up? All the surveys by scientists, loggers, corporations, etc turned up nothing. Whether or not they are being specifically looked for or not its a giant ape and its really odd if bigfoot exists but has left no hard evidence behind. Your not even arguing they are incredibly rare but all over north america. If the hard evidence for bigfoot does turns up it will be a statistical fluke that it took so long.
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 We don't know nothing's turned up. All we know is nothing has been presented and/or analyzed, cataloged, etc.
Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 You really don't think its odd that even in the last 100 years not a body, bone, scrap of flesh hasn't turned up? All the surveys by scientists, loggers, corporations, etc turned up nothing. Whether or not they are being specifically looked for or not its a giant ape and its really odd if bigfoot exists but has left no hard evidence behind. Your not even arguing they are incredibly rare but all over north america. If the hard evidence for bigfoot does turns up it will be a statistical fluke that it took so long. Not true. Loads of stuff has turned up. Loads and loads. And it's all encountered the Wall of Denial. Isn't that the neat Catch-22? How I know they're real: they've left every kind of sign any other animal leaves. Uh huh, sure people are making it all up. Wanna bet? How much? As I keep saying: I have never before encountered a totally biologically correct hallucination; and I'm not betting on starting now.
dmaker Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 ^ DWA: How you know they are real? So you have crossed over from open minded skeptic, as you like to call yourself, to believer now?
Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Where did I say anything that would make you believe ANYTHING like that!?!?!?!? My sole currency in this discussion is evidence. The proponents have all of it.
dmaker Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 "How I know they're real:" DWA...just about two posts up...
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Uh ... lowland gorilla, 1847, mountain gorilla, 1902 ... <I think>. There's some "devil in the details", though, because I'm not sure if those dates represent first acknowledged scientific publication, the collection of "stuff" that lead to the papers, or actual acceptance. (As we know from a certain DNA paper, those are far from the same thing. ) MIB Interestingly, the first European expedition into the mountain gorillas' range was able to shoot a mountain gorilla and bring the body back. The very first expedition. It didn't take four hundred years. It was immediate. With the lowland gorilla, they didn't even need to go looking - a native brought a gorilla skull to a colonial official who said they wanted a gorilla specimen. Contrast that to bigfoot - 500 years and thousands of alleged sightings. No body. Not true. Loads of stuff has turned up. Loads and loads. And it's all encountered the Wall of Denial. Isn't that the neat Catch-22? How I know they're real: they've left every kind of sign any other animal leaves. Uh huh, sure people are making it all up. Wanna bet? How much? As I keep saying: I have never before encountered a totally biologically correct hallucination; and I'm not betting on starting now. You say loads and loads has turned up, but where is it? Where are the bodies? Where are the bones? Where's the tissue? Edited July 25, 2013 by leisureclass
Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) "How I know they're real:" DWA...just about two posts up... Uh huh, which brings me back to my question. When are you going to prove to me that you're saying anything I need to put stock in? How I know they're real, chapter 2. (thousand.) Some people. Interestingly, the first European expedition into the mountain gorillas' range was able to shoot a mountain gorilla and bring the body back. The very first expedition. It didn't take four hundred years. It was immediate. With the lowland gorilla, they didn't even need to go looking - a native brought a gorilla skull to a colonial official who said they wanted a gorilla specimen. Contrast that to bigfoot - 500 years and thousands of alleged sightings. No body. You say loads and loads has turned up, but where is it? Where are the bodies? Where are the bones? Where's the tissue? Well, like I said, isn't that the Catch-22? "Where's the proof?" "Well, we sent you some hair..." "Oh, that didn't match anything else we had, so we threw it all out." More than once that's been reported, and tell me how can you prove they're lying when the people who could have did that? Anomalously big bones, found more than once. A mummified foot, in Southeast AK, on two separate occasions. A skull that the peerless scientists at UCLA contradicted themselves describing...then just lost. A whole skeleton, at least once. A gigantic jawbone, in SE AK. Poop, pee, blood, all under compelling circumstances. Nests, matching nothing else known in North America, but recognizeable to anyone who has studied, say, gorillas. Two people (and I am not talking Smeja and Dyer) report killing one and examining the body. One of them took particular interest in the foot. He described to Krantz just the structure Krantz had already theorized would be essential for a biped that size. I could go on - didn't even mention thousands of tracks, in places only a loon - a loon with world-class chops in primatology and biomechanics - would hoax them - but why? You just go "where's the proof?" ON A SITE WHERE ONE CAN GO TO A THREAD DISCUSSING PEOPLE IN THE FIELD, LOOKING FOR PROOF. Jeezh. Go yell at a black hole fanatic, would ya? Please don't tell me those are real until I can watch one suck up my house, OK? Or you could just read. I know which I think is more fun. Oh. OK. So I go with the people who have evidence backing up what they're saying. That ain't the skeptics. Edited July 25, 2013 by DWA
dmaker Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 DWA, I am not trying to badger you nor am I asking for a lengthy debate on the existence of Bigfoot. I found your statement, "I know they're real:" to be a stark departure from your usual posture. Your position to date has been expressed by you many times and that has been that you are an open minded skeptic who does not believe one way or the other about Bigfoot, but are just following the evidence until someone proves the creature to the world. Then suddenly you say that you know they are real. That is quite a difference. I find it hard to believe that any open minded skeptic would come out and say " I know they're real" based on the current body of evidence. So I am asking you directly, are you now a believer? Are you now, for whatever reason(s), convinced that Bigfoot is real? You are no longer following evidence to it's conclusion, you have reached that conclusion despite the lack of proof, i.e specimen, or confirmed piece of one? And if so, which it seems based on your comment that you are now a believer, not a curious investigator, what tipped the scales towards belief in your mind? And if you are not a believer, you merely need to say no, I am not. I must have typed that mistakenly. Please do directly answer the question if you don't mind. Please don't skirt it like you did above and launch into a tirade about skeptics and evidence. That's not what I am asking you.
Guest Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 If a person, after having considered the available evidence, has come to the conclusion that bigfoot are real (or most likely real), what of it? If that position has evolved over time, what does that mean?
dmaker Posted July 25, 2013 Posted July 25, 2013 Bipto, it means they have changed dramatically from their previous, often stated position. So I want to be clear on that significant point. If DWA has changed from open minded skeptic, to convinced believer, then it is worth noting for future discussions where he stands and that his stance has changed dramatically. It's a simple question based on a statement made. It should not be too difficult to answer. By DWA, I mean, not you.
Recommended Posts