Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Who knows? Isn't that one of the standard-issue scientific predictions for any major discovery? It's certainly why domestic-cattle experts hope the kouprey is still out there; it's got to be a bomb against most of the things that afflict farmyard cattle, especially in tropical environments. We have come up with so many medical advances based on things found in nature, who wouldn't want to invest the minimum at least required for that bet? How can we know how sasquatch will be useful when we don't even have one to study? And that primatology and anthropology will have their greatest explosion in history - possiby quintupling what we know within a decade of the discovery - is just about the safest scientific bet ever. Links that no one is making now will suddenly be made all over the place; places no one is looking for hominoid remains now will become hot spots. Hominoids no one is looking for will start getting found, one after another. (The biggest barrier to our knowledge here is our ignorance; count on it.) These sciences will quickly ascend to the forefront of scientific endeavor. That isn't worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 You seem to think there is some sort of Bigfoot veil over the eyes of mainstream science. You certainly cannot think that you are the first person to make the connections and thoughts that you expressed in your post? If you think any scientist or organization would willingly avoid the hominiod discovery Utopia you described above then I believe you need some more objectivity and realism in your thinking process. The only barrier to science discovering Bigfoot is that there is no Bigfoot to discover. That's kind of a hard one to ignore.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That's your opinion dmaker. There are thousands and thousands of us that say your wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) The only barrier to science discovering Bigfoot is that there is no Bigfoot to discover. That's kind of a hard one to ignore.. GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. A programming term. Tell a computer there is no such thing as bigfoot and the computer will tell you there is no such thing as bigfoot. Flawed assumptions lead to flawed conclusions. "Since bigfoot cannot exist, any information indicating that bigfoot do exist is false, and since there is no data indicating the existence of bigfoot that is not false, bigfoot cannot exist." Edited September 12, 2013 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Bigfoot lives in one of the forests in this circle. Which Interstate highways is your sighting in between? Edited September 12, 2013 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That's your opinion dmaker. There are thousands and thousands of us that say your wrong. Wow, maybe even millions, holy crap Drew, now what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. A programming term. Tell a computer there is no such thing as bigfoot and the computer will tell you there is no such thing as bigfoot. Flawed assumptions lead to flawed conclusions. "Since bigfoot cannot exist, any information indicating that bigfoot do exist is false, and since there is no data indicating the existence of bigfoot that is not false, bigfoot cannot exist." Mulling starting up a Rod Serling-type thread here. "Consider dmaker. Now consider: you are him. Closing off the ports to all information; labeling others as close-minded. What does that take from you? What could it do...TO you...? Consider....and you may find yourself entering...The Twilight Zone." [cue crescendo] Know what bugs me? The Big Dipper. That ain't real, and I defy you to prove it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) DWA, why don't we start with you proving Bigfoot to be real before we move on to cellestial bodies that at least can be seen and be predicted to be there tomorrow too. I don't have to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow to make it a good bet. Just like I cannot prove to you that yoda is not sitting on my couch right now playing with my x-box, but I think they are pretty safe bets. So please stop with the ridiculous statements like prove the big dipper is real. That's your opinion dmaker. There are thousands and thousands of us that say your wrong. Duly noted. Do any of these thousands have some solid evidence that they can share with us? .... ... ... No? Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 You need reading comprehesion. I never said anything about our celestial bodies. I was talking about SETI and listening for alien life. No evidence , yet 11 million was used each year for it.LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) So I tested out my recording equipment, and I got 6 hours of continuous recording, that is all I need 11-5am, sweet. I am using an editing software to look at the wave information which really helps narrow down events. Coyotes went off at 2:36 into the recording, that was cool, but they were a bit far away, I will post one of the closer ones, as they happen very close to my yard routinely. The squatch whoops would come out clear as day, as this thing picks up everything with very litte white noise or distortion, It's a Tascam D-07mmk and runs about $150, and is well worth it! Sheri, I am glad your ok with just sharing your story here, thanks:] Dmaker, what do you think about Meldrum's analysis of the footprint evidence, and his assertion that certain track ways show the biological nature of the footprints, meaning that the toes and prints demonstrate biological movement that could not be faked, such as splaying of the toes, digging in of the toes, variation in the footfalls based on terrain, and the amount of weight needed to leave such impressions? Edited September 12, 2013 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) You need reading comprehesion. I never said anything about our celestial bodies. I was talking about SETI and listening for alien life. No evidence , yet 11 million was used each year for it.LOL I was talking to DWA who was talking about the big dipper. " Dmaker, what do you think about Meldrum's analysis of the footprint evidence, and his assertion that certain track ways show the biological nature of the footprints, meaning that the toes and prints demonstrate biological movement that could not be faked, such as splaying of the toes, digging in of the toes, variation in the footfalls based on terrain, and the amount of weight needed to leave such impressions?" Well I am not an expert in primate locomotion. I doubt many on this forum are. I can say that Meldrum has been wrong in the past. Both in regards to tracks that ended up being hoaxed and in the more recent MTB stuff. But I cannot debate him on the scientific details. Again, I doubt that very many here could either. But I can comment on general things such as if his analysis is so solid, why has he not published numerous peer reviewed scientific papers on Bigfoot? If he is so spot on, then why is there no scientific consensus on his findings? Why, after all this time, has he completely failed to advance the case for bigfoot one inch since he started? Bigfoot is no closer to scientific acceptance than it was when it first appeared on the scene. To me, observations like that are telling. They tell me that perhaps he has a passion for Bigfoot, but that his theories about the existence of the animal might not actually be correct. I am not attacking or disparaging him in any way. These are simply objective remarks. I am sure he is quite accomplished in his field. He was promoted to full professor recently I believe. So obviously his career is going well. Unimpeded by Bigfoot. Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 Duly noted. Do any of these thousands have some solid evidence that they can share with us? There's no "us". Just you. Asked honestly, your question would be "Do any of these thousands have some solid evidence that they can share with ME." A problem here is that you've arbitrarily appointed yourself judge, jury, and executioner regarding what is and is not "solid" evidence. You could be swamped in a pile of track casts, hair samples, and footage, and you'd still maintain your denial. As I said before, "any evidence but THAT evidence, any proof but THAT proof" ... no matter what is offered, you reject it, you demand different proof, different evidence, something different for you to scoff at. Intellectual dishonesty continues. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Oh it's just me is it? Could you explain to me then, please, why Bigfoot remains unconfirmed by science? Or does science require an unfair level of evidence? Or am I solely responsible for the lack of Bigfoot being considered as a real, described taxon? I think you are quite far off the mark here. There are a number of people on this forum that are a bit bored with stories. Stories with nothing to back them up but more stories, or in some cases, ALL CAP declarations. As if that adds legitimacy to a claim. I am not the only one here who would love to see some decent evidence. Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Oh it's just me is it? Could you explain to me then, please, why Bigfoot remains unconfirmed by science? Or does science require an unfair level of evidence? Or am I solely responsible for the lack of Bigfoot being considered as a real, described taxon? Dmaker, I think you know their answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I've said this before, but I will say it again. The problem with the alleged evidence for Bigfoot isn't that it gets denied simply because of the subject matter. It gets denied because the current evidence for Bigfoot is not very strong. It needs to get better. Not standards to get lower. You mention tracks and photos and samples. That I would deny them all. That is simply not true. I have little faith in tracks due to the ease with which they are hoaxed and the fact that they even have a history of hoaxing the phd experts. Those are a dubious source evidence, in my opinion, for those reasons. Samples? I am not the one denying those. The labs that run the tests are the ones returning the results as everything but a Bigfoot. How can you lay that claim at my feet? That's absurd. Photos and video? For pity sake, get some decent ones and I'll happily look at them. And I can tell you this, if they are clear enough and unambiguous then I would begin to reconsider happily. I mean that honestly. I wold love for someone to get some nice, clear high-def footage of an alleged Bigfoot. That would be awesome. No more watching the PGF and trying to convince myself that it's real. The problem is not me, the problem is the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts