Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Was the consensus of the extinction of the coelacanth testable? Sure it was. It was as testable as the consensus for the extinction of T-Rex. Evidence of absence. That is how extinction is measured by science. You go look in places where something should be and if it is repeatedly not there, nor is there sign of its passing, then the consensus is that it is extinct. Is this infallible?  Obviously not. Does that mean we should launch T-Rex expeditions?  Absolutely not. 

 

Nobody has advocated launching a T-Rex expedition because there aren't reports of folks claiming to see a T-Rex in the forests. The fact is that there are reputable citizens claiming to have seen a hairy biped in the wood.

 

Evidence of absence is obviously not absence of evidence, particularly in the case of the coelacanth. Obviously, science chose to run with consensus belief without looking where it should have been, and they were arrogant enough to present this consensus as fact to be taught to our school children as fact. If consensus is not infallible, then why would it be taught to our kids as fact?

 

Perhaps science should revisit its methods for dismissing the possibility of something not existing based on its previous record, don't you think?

 

ETA - This doesn't even address the fact that they claimed that the coelacanth "evolved" into another completely different species.

Edited September 27, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
ETA

[dmaker]

^^ They key point you seem to be missing so that you can shame science into admitting past mistakes and therefore allowing that Bigfoot must be real, is that in the case of the coelacanth, where science was wrong, a LIVE SPECIMEN was used to prove the current consensus wrong. 

 

So all I can say to that is.....  got Monkey?  

Edited September 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

"Got monkey?" is not anything near science.

 

"No proof" isn't even sauce, let alone weak.

[Rockape]

"What the mainstream has trouble with is true unknowns, when they can use nothing that they currently accept as proven, but must work with things that they simply don't accept because of pre-existing biases that aren't driven by evidence, but rather by their refusal to even consider evidence on the sole grounds that it's inconclusive." DWA

 

Except for recent examples where Nature examined Ketchum's paper and passed it along for peer review? I see no refusal to consider evidence present there.  Care to try again?

 

Rock, how are foot prints truly testable? How can one irrefutably demonstrate a footprint came from a Bigfoot? If that was possible, it would have been done by now. Footprints have been proven to be hoaxed though.  Others must simply be too ambiguous to prove anything. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation and Meldrum would be sitting on the laurels of his many peer reviewed publications on the universally accepted veracity of Bigfoot tracks.  That is not happening...

 

Hair not identified with a known creature does not equal Bigfoot. Could you please link to the published study results for this hair claim?

 

 

I don't recall the name of the original scientist who said the hairs were unknown, but they were then sent to Ketchum for her study which in my mind rendered them virtually worthless, but still, they were not proven to be man made.

 

As for Meldrum, when a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and expert on foot morphology and locomotion in primates finds something interesting in the footprints, I have to give it credence.

 

As I say, none of this is proof bigfoot/yeti exists, that was not my point. My point is that not all evidence has been proven to be man made, which was your assertion.

[Guest DWA]

Nobody has advocated launching a T-Rex expedition because there aren't reports of folks claiming to see a T-Rex in the forests. The fact is that there are reputable citizens claiming to have seen a hairy biped in the wood.

 

Right.  Practitioners of Fourth-Grade Science Fair Science don't understand that a large (frequency) and consistent (coherence) body of evidence is indeed testable, as it puts forth the proposition:  look here and you will find this.  That is testable by anyone's definition of the word.

 

Evidence of absence is obviously not absence of evidence, particularly in the case of the coelacanth. Obviously, science chose to run with consensus belief without looking where it should have been, and they were arrogant enough to present this consensus as fact to be taught to our school children as fact. If consensus is not infallible, then why would it be taught to our kids as fact?

 

Perhaps science should revisit its methods for dismissing the possibility of something not existing based on its previous record, don't you think?

 

I am seriously wondering whether science should ever pronounce anything extinct.  I suppose it's a useful marker as to our dim conception of current status.  But extinction pronouncements have been proven wrong many times.

[Guest]

This thread has been really entertaining as the (No-Such Thing as BF) and (BF is only in the PNW vast remote wilderness) types just cant stand the thought of BF being not just widespread but also not exclusive to remote wilderness away from town... hahaha

[Guest DWA]

"What the mainstream has trouble with is true unknowns, when they can use nothing that they currently accept as proven, but must work with things that they simply don't accept because of pre-existing biases that aren't driven by evidence, but rather by their refusal to even consider evidence on the sole grounds that it's inconclusive." DWA

 

Except for recent examples where Nature examined Ketchum's paper and passed it along for peer review? I see no refusal to consider evidence present there.  Care to try again?

 

Nope, got it right the first time.  This is yet another example of Fourth-Grade Science Fair Science.  Scientists stooped to test something that they could put in a test tube.  Problem is, potential leads don't always fit in test tubes, and consistent markers from a large volume of observations do put forth a testable proposition:  look where this stuff got found/seen, and you will find this animal.  I made a very well-educated guess that Melba didn't have the goods; the evidence of shoddy work was there well before findings were released.  It might still pan out, but the firestorm she surrounded herself with didn't help things a bit.  Meanwhile, the huge pile of leads remains untested.

 

Rock, how are foot prints truly testable? How can one irrefutably demonstrate a footprint came from a Bigfoot? If that was possible, it would have been done by now. Footprints have been proven to be hoaxed though.  Others must simply be too ambiguous to prove anything. Otherwise, we would not be having this conversation and Meldrum would be sitting on the laurels of his many peer reviewed publications on the universally accepted veracity of Bigfoot tracks.  That is not happening...

 

It's not happening because Meldrum is behaving in the way a true scientist does.  The mainstream, not.

 

Hair not identified with a known creature does not equal Bigfoot. Could you please link to the published study results for this hair claim?

 

Published study results do not dictate reality.  Refusal to study or publish doesn't change reality.

 

Not identified with a known animal says "find out what this is."

 

You bring up a good point See. The coelacanth was thougt to be extinct, yes. I do not really see this as a win for the Footer argument though. We had record of its existence. We had lots of fossils in its range. We have nothing of the sort for Bigfoot. Yes the consensus was wrong on the coelacanth. If you scroll up like 3 or 4 posts you will see where I freely admitted that scientific consensus can be, and probably often is, wrong. 

 

When one has fossil remains of at least two putative sasquatch ancestors, oh, it's a win all right. 

 

More than one mainstream scientist has said that - in the words of one of them - "there is no reason such a beast should not persist today."   Note the persist.  We have fossils to support the possibility - along with evidence, building virtually every day, that we are only beginning to scratch the surface of learning how primates spread across the planet.

 

No fossils in sasquatch range?  History tells us that when something new is confirmed, the fossil search for its lineage catches fire - and suddenly that range is sprouting bones.  Or - as in the case of the lesser panda, confirmed in Asia long before its first ancestor was found in Tennessee - not.

 

[dmaker]

"My point is that not all evidence has been proven to be man made, which was your assertion."  

 

Rock, that was not my assertion. I said all of the evidence that has had its source traced and proven has been wrong or fake. 

[Guest DWA]

^^^And all that has been done by the proponents, who still have this pile of consistent testable evidence waiting at the mainstream's doorstep whenever the mainstream is ready.

[dmaker]

"Nope, got it right the first time.  This is yet another example of Fourth-Grade Science Fair Science.  Scientists stooped to test something that they could put in a test tube.  Problem is, potential leads don't always fit in test tubes, and consistent markers from a large volume of observations do put forth a testable proposition:  look where this stuff got found/seen, and you will find this animal.  I made a very well-educated guess that Melba didn't have the goods; the evidence of shoddy work was there well before findings were released.  It might still pan out, but the firestorm she surrounded herself with didn't help things a bit.  Meanwhile, the huge pile of leads remains untested." -DWA

 

 

Sorry, but you don't get to back pedal so easily. You very clearly said that:

 

"What the mainstream has trouble with is true unknowns, when they can use nothing that they currently accept as proven, but must work with things that they simply don't accept because of pre-existing biases that aren't driven by evidence, but rather by their refusal to even consider evidence on the sole grounds that it's inconclusive."

 

So you do not get to move the goal posts, back pedal and pretend you said something else. 

[Guest DWA]

This thread has been really entertaining as the (No-Such Thing as BF) and (BF is only in the PNW vast remote wilderness) types just cant stand the thought of BF being not just widespread but also not exclusive to remote wilderness away from town... hahaha

When a bear shows up at a garbage dump and a sasquatch does, the only difference is in who believes the ones who saw the latter.

[dmaker]

Eye witness reports are not testable in the scientific sense. Sure, follow them up, see if they lead to a Saquatch. How is that going so far?  

 

But please stop insisting that reports are testable or falsifiable in any scientific process. They simply are not.  Following up on a subjective, anecdotal report hardly qualifies as falsifying or testing evidence in the scientific sense.  To demand that reality be changed for your fondness of anecdotal evidence, well that almost seems like Fourth Grade Science...

[dmaker]

So when asked to verify one's source of a claim, the acceptable response is now:

 

Published study results do not dictate reality.  Refusal to study or publish doesn't change reality.  (DWA)

 

That is pretty laughable dude. So everything published by Meldrum, Krantz and Bindernagle, they don't really matter?

[Guest LarryP]

I would plus this if I had one left today.  Great post

 

It's so absurd to think that there is a significant group of people on this earth that actually fear the existence of bigfoot.  I'm sure someone actually does but it is possible that most people who don't believe base that on a lack of evidence that convinces them and not fear.

 

This is what I wrote:

 

"a deep seated fear of everything and anything that cannot be explained in materialist terms".

 

In other words, anything that falls outside their view of what they believe is "reality",  terrifies them.

 

It's classic example of normalcy bias, only on a grand scale. 

[Branco]

Bottom line: Every BF DNA will "contaminated" with human DNA.