dmaker Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Clear and well defined tracks are easily faked. And they still have never lead to an actual Bigfoot. Just like alleged Bigfoot hair is never anything but bear, raccoon, dog, possum, carpet, human, horse... etc.
Drew Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Tracks are not verifiable evidence. A skull would be verifiable evidence. If someone writes a paper about the Bigfoot skull they found, another scientist could go to the skull take measurements and reach the same conclusion. If someone writes a paper about the Bigfoot DNA they found, another scientist could go to the DNA and see where the specimen fits on a Cladogram. If someone writes a paper about a Bigfoot foot print in the ground, another scientist can not go and look at the foot that made it and see if it is from an actual Bigfoot. 1
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 That depends on your definition of verifiable evidence. There are many reports that also included very clear and well defined tracks. Every one of which was laid by a primatological expert with world-class trackfaking chops, so none of them count. Actually, it would have to be a guild predating primatology and the United States of America, so I take that back.
Guest LarryP Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Tracks are not verifiable evidence. Says who?
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Tracks are not verifiable evidence. Um, sure they are. "Hey look. A deer track." Figure out what made the durn track. Called "hunting." Ever do it? A skull would be verifiable evidence. No. A skull would be called "proof." But haven't we seen this before. And of course skulls can be, and have been, tossed by people who just, you know, felt uncomfortable with that. (I'll trust the people who say that happened over the people who say it didn't...and did it. And if you don't, your faith is touching, and brings tears to sentimental eyes.)
dmaker Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Tracks are not verifiable evidence. Um, sure they are. "Hey look. A deer track." Figure out what made the durn track. Called "hunting." Ever do it? A skull would be verifiable evidence. No. A skull would be called "proof." But haven't we seen this before. And of course skulls can be, and have been, tossed by people who just, you know, felt uncomfortable with that. (I'll trust the people who say that happened over the people who say it didn't...and did it. And if you don't, your faith is touching, and brings tears to sentimental eyes.) Got anything to verify that claim of tossing a bigfoot skull in the waste bin? Pretty bold claim, so I'm assuming you have something...?
Drew Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Comparing a footprint of a classified creature, with the footprint of an unclassified giant, hairy, biped, does not work.
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 So. Anyone else have an opinion on the OP?
Guest Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Sure a lot of research is based on previous research, thoughts or ideas ..pretty much all of it. Including Bigfoot research
Guest LarryP Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Comparing a footprint of a classified creature, with the footprint of an unclassified giant, hairy, biped, does not work. It does not work for who? You keep stating your opinions as if they are immutable laws. If someone see's a large, hairy, biped, and then goes to where they saw it and finds the tracks left by the large, hairy, biped, that's going to work for them.
Guest Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Tracks are not verifiable evidence. Correct. Even if the tracks are real, they are still merely holes in the ground. A skull would be verifiable evidence. If it were to actually be verified. If someone writes a paper about the Bigfoot skull they found, another scientist could go to the skull take measurements and reach the same conclusion. It is possible to fabricate a primate skull. This has been known to happen numerous times, the most famous of which being the well known Piltdown hoax. Science needs to own up to their mistakes and realize everybody can be wrong sometimes, even the Bigfoot skeptics. If someone writes a paper about the Bigfoot DNA they found, another scientist could go to the DNA and see where the specimen fits on a Cladogram. This could be done, but the sasquatch is special compared to other animals. With every other species, a quick cell phone video or a piece of hair would be enough to establish it's existence. However, the main way animals were proven to exist back when sasquatch/bigfoot sightings were first hitting newspapers in the mid-19th century was by way of acquiring a holotype. Let's say no one on earth knows what a sasquatch is, and someone takes a photo of one. It would be proven to exist within 24 hours. So with our sasquatch, every form of evidence except a body is obsolete.
Guest Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 (edited) You wouldn't be able to show me an example. Go ahead. I'll show you how anything you come up with is firmly tethered to something proven. That's how science works. You expand on things that have a soild foundation (evolution, relativity, ect). You use the known to help explore the unknown. So are you admitting that Bigfoot is tied to things that are not proven? Edited December 20, 2013 by Jerrymanderer
dmaker Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Let's say no one on earth knows what a sasquatch is, and someone takes a photo of one. It would be proven to exist within 24 hours. So with our sasquatch, every form of evidence except a body is obsolete. So you agree then that there are currently no photos of a Sasquatch? You are not a supporter of the PGF as genuine? I disagree on the body thing. DNA would be very useful. I could even be personally swayed by convincing video under the right circumstances.
Drew Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 Let's say no one on earth knows what a sasquatch is, and someone takes a photo of one. It would be proven to exist within 24 hours. You mean like Roger Patterson did in 1967?
WSA Posted December 20, 2013 Posted December 20, 2013 You mean like Roger Patterson did in 1967? Good point. We are all learning, aren't we?
Recommended Posts