Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

ThePhaige

.....with out science and scientists? We are back to living in small villages with superstitions and blood letting.

 

 

 I think it was more the Engineers, but personally I am not railing on science as a process, I am railing more on when the process is abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Its a rationale for why scientists generally don't believe in Bigfoot or engage in research pertaining to Bigfoot.

You disagree with the notion that the absence of hard evidence for the existence of Bigfoot leads scientists, and most Americans, to not believe?

 

Let's define terms. What exactly do you mean by "hard evidence"?

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

Some part of the body or body fluid. Even just DNA. Fresh feces could produce a metagenome of bacteria, viruses, etc that is unique at the species level. The complete proteome of a hair sample could also be used to distinguish species. Fossils or bones.

Any of those would get scientists take Bigfoot more seriously or acknowledge its existence. Eyewitness testimony, footprints, pgf, blogsquatches, audio recordings, aren't going to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

"Even" just DNA. You speak of it as though it is barely acceptable evidence. Aren't people put to their death, or exonerated therefrom, based upon DNA alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Some part of the body or body fluid. Even just DNA. Fresh feces could produce a metagenome of bacteria, viruses, etc that is unique at the species level. The complete proteome of a hair sample could also be used to distinguish species. Fossils or bones.

Any of those would get scientists take Bigfoot more seriously or acknowledge its existence. Eyewitness testimony, footprints, pgf, blogsquatches, audio recordings, aren't going to do it.

 

 

I agree that DNA will ultimately prove or disprove the Bigfoot issue.  That being said, there have been stories recently in the news where some have said they proved bigfoot. When they did via DNA the DNA methods or scientist we attacked.  I have not followed this issue very well.

 

Here is my solution. Take the top 10 most skeptical DNA scientist and give them the next best 'sample' of this or that we come up with. Then, the fact will take us somewhere.  I know it is more complicated than that. But, that is the kind of effort that will be needed.  Sounds like a job for History Channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

I meant DNA as a minimum. DNA would be good enough to get scientists interested, open, and possibly acknowledge Bigfoots existence. They would at least have to admit there is some type of ape out there whether or not it is Bigfoot would require more research.

We might find out Sunday if Sykes has the goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

When you exclude photographic data as "hard evidence", do you realize that you are dismissing essentially all the "hard evidence" the astronomers use to understand the universe? In the biological sciences, yes, a physical specimen is the finest form of evidence. But photographic evidence, properly evaluated, is also very fine "hard evidence" and can be used by biological science. And a lot of medical diagnostics of illness and injury is based on photographic imaging evidence (x-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans, etc. These are all variations of the general concept of technological imaging evidence.

 

So image evidence has merit as "hard evidence" if properly evaluated and utilized.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

If there was more to work with than a 46 year old video, eyewitness reports, and tracks, all of which could be false more scientists would be interested.

DNA or consistent quality photographs would interest more scientists and possibly government agencies or corporations. Until then the absence of evidence far outweighs the current evidence in most minds.

I completely agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

When you exclude photographic data as "hard evidence", do you realize that you are dismissing essentially all the "hard evidence" the astronomers use to understand the universe? In the biological sciences, yes, a physical specimen is the finest form of evidence. But photographic evidence, properly evaluated, is also very fine "hard evidence" and can be used by biological science. And a lot of medical diagnostics of illness and injury is based on photographic imaging evidence (x-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans, etc. These are all variations of the general concept of technological imaging evidence.

 

So image evidence has merit as "hard evidence" if properly evaluated and utilized.

 

 

Bill.  I agree and great point. We both know the PGF is hard evidence.  I am just suggesting apart from a body, DNA would move a significant amount of skeptics and many on the fence.  They might be less inclined to think a group of scientist faked DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

When you exclude photographic data as "hard evidence", do you realize that you are dismissing essentially all the "hard evidence" the astronomers use to understand the universe? In the biological sciences, yes, a physical specimen is the finest form of evidence. But photographic evidence, properly evaluated, is also very fine "hard evidence" and can be used by biological science. And a lot of medical diagnostics of illness and injury is based on photographic imaging evidence (x-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans, etc. These are all variations of the general concept of technological imaging evidence.

So image evidence has merit as "hard evidence" if properly evaluated and utilized.

 

 

That kinda goes without saying. The value of photos/images really shouldn't even be an issue. As one example....one of these Honeymooners is chubbier than the other....can anyone tell, with certainty, which one it is?... :) ...

KramdenNorton1_zpsd04be79f.jpg

There isn't any problem, in principle, with determining body dimensions/proportions from images. The problem lies more in people accepting what they see in images. Like....exceptionally long upper-arms...

PattyEdandRalph1_zps72c447d6.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Thank you Bill and Sweti. You're both spot on. I wanted to flush out the issue as many people only think of skin, blood, or bodies as "hard evidence". 

 

That couldn't be farther from the truth and the truth is sometimes very difficult to accept.

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

When you exclude photographic data as "hard evidence", do you realize that you are dismissing essentially all the "hard evidence" the astronomers use to understand the universe? In the biological sciences, yes, a physical specimen is the finest form of evidence. But photographic evidence, properly evaluated, is also very fine "hard evidence" and can be used by biological science. And a lot of medical diagnostics of illness and injury is based on photographic imaging evidence (x-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans, etc. These are all variations of the general concept of technological imaging evidence.

 

So image evidence has merit as "hard evidence" if properly evaluated and utilized.

First let me say how much I appreciate your efforts and I really enjoy your work on this subject.  I agree with you on the concept of what is hard evidence. However, Sasquatch is taboo and a reputation of myth and folklore for most.  Not in the case of science and astronomy. It is logical to assume that in such a subject. It will take more than films and photos. footprints and unrealiable witnesses  to be considered hard evidence.  Nothing will suffice but  a specimen .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

The requirement of a specimen is a point of view held by many, and I understand that idea. But I also understand that with other forms of empirical evidence, if a hoax or fake can be ruled out to a certainty, then we are left with that overused but none-the-less true phrase, "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the solution."

 

This idea, however, I acknowledge, is a point of contention with many, and certainly diverging opinions must be respected.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

When you exclude photographic data as "hard evidence", do you realize that you are dismissing essentially all the "hard evidence" the astronomers use to understand the universe? In the biological sciences, yes, a physical specimen is the finest form of evidence. But photographic evidence, properly evaluated, is also very fine "hard evidence" and can be used by biological science. And a lot of medical diagnostics of illness and injury is based on photographic imaging evidence (x-rays, MRI, CT scans, PET scans, etc. These are all variations of the general concept of technological imaging evidence.

 

So image evidence has merit as "hard evidence" if properly evaluated and utilized.

It's awful hard to hoax something in space since other astronomers can look in the exact spot and get the same data. Medical diagnostic can be repeated to rule out a hoax or false data. This can't be done with any of the photographic Bigfoot evidence, most of which is terrible.

Hard evidence should leave no other conclusions.

Even the best example, the pgf, you acknowledge in your published paper a hoax can't be completly ruled out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

First let me say how much I appreciate your efforts and I really enjoy your work on this subject.  I agree with you on the concept of what is hard evidence. However, Sasquatch is taboo and a reputation of myth and folklore for most.  Not in the case of science and astronomy. It is logical to assume that in such a subject. It will take more than films and photos. footprints and unrealiable witnesses  to be considered hard evidence.  Nothing will suffice but  a specimen .

 

So you're telling me that EVERY witness, including many people on this forum, has been unreliable?

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...