Dude, What?

[Guest LarryP]

 

Sometimes I wonder if we're looking for the same animal. Some of us are looking for a biological, flesh and blood animal, and some people seem to be looking for some kind of supernatural cartoon character.

 

As Branco has addressed here on many occassions, they're not all the "same animal".

[Drew]

I think if eyes are emitting light, that is indicative of some form of hallucination, or of modifying a recollection.

 

 

You know, like when describing a fish you caught, it is always a little bit more awesome than the actual fish.

 

I think the same can be said of some Bigfoot reports.  Embellishment maybe?

[Guest DWA]

^^^If you can prove it, sure.

But there's no need to.  It's irrelevant.  Doesn't explain any of this.

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/92-population-clines-of-the-north-american-sasquatch-as-evidenced-by-track-lengths-and-estimated-statures

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

To, you know, llist only three.

^{Have you ever thought about the possibility that bigfoot don't want us to find out about them...so they've telepathically infected the entire scientific mainstream?}

 

^{Oh shucks.  You mean I need to provide evidence for that...?}

[Guest thermalman]

I dismiss nothing. I just ask for the evidence. Reports are evidence, on which I can say nothing except: there's the report.

Didn't you dismiss DNA evidence of the kouprey, brought up yesterday?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45575-unknown-primate-dna/?p=810826

Seems like a contradiction?

Edited February 5, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

Didn't you dismiss DNA evidence of the kouprey, brought up yesterday?

No.  why would I?  The kouprey is a known species, right?

 

My point is that from a purely scientific standpoint, sasquatch has much more evidence than kouprey, the only difference being that the mainstream vouches for kouprey.  Which is a totally subjective difference.

 

Unless, I mean, you have seen one.  Or were personally present when all that DNA was sequenced.  Otherwise you're just taking people's word for it.  Not saying that's wrong; just putting your "personal knowledge" in perspective.

 

(There may be one kouprey photo that's better than P-G.  And that frankly doesn't look enough like other stuff I've seen for me to be sure it's a kouprey.  I'm taking folks' word for it.)

 

Most people seem unable to get just how much of what they "know" isn't in fact what they know but what they have been told.

 

In fact, if you read those links, you'll see that the only reason sasquatch isn't accepted is because scientists are in denial about it.

 

Unless you can show me the point-for-point refutation of those links.

 

You can't.

 

That's what denial looks like.

[Guest Urkelbot]

^^^If you can prove it, sure.

But there's no need to.  It's irrelevant.  Doesn't explain any of this.

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/92-population-clines-of-the-north-american-sasquatch-as-evidenced-by-track-lengths-and-estimated-statures

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/91-anatomy-of-the-sasquatch-foot

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprintsTo, you know, llist only three.

^{Have you ever thought about the possibility that bigfoot don't want us to find out about them...so they've telepathically infected the entire scientific mainstream?}

 

^{Oh shucks.  You mean I need to provide evidence for that...?}

Since you keep bringing up these articles as a gold standard here are several problems with the population clines paper.

Bergmans rule is a function of body surface to weight ratio and  temperature.  An increased height doesn't necessarily correlate to an increase in body surface.  In fact it may be the opposite being taller and thinner creates more body surface area than shorter and stout.  The example of human variation in the paper uses body mass not height contrasted to latitude.  The examples of animal species mentioned are NOT CITED but I'm guessing it was body surface area to mass being measured across latitudes not height.

The sample sizes are low 5 and 7 for Oregon n=44 and n=47 overall. He mentions other databases, greens being one, but rejected using them in the study.  Even stating they did not fit these trends.   The claim the 44 foot and 47 height examples are all from the same sex and age are based on what???  It looks like the author cherry picked the data to conform to his theory.

A height of 14' is within the western Canada group why was this not thrown out?  I think most would agree that is well above a realistic height for Sasquatch.  Measured footprints are one thing but how accurate are eyewitness height estimates.

The paper is a mix of bias and assumptions which is a combination for poor science.   It would be impressive if someone took all the reports to date and got the same results.

[Guest DWA]

That's one paper (and you don't invalidate its claims.  And "why not throw that one out?" is cherrypicking.  there are nine-foot humans on record, right?)

 

Note that you're asking questions, not providing answers.

 

you think a bunch of random lies hoaxes and hallucinations would produce that data?

 

Again, you're using squirrely assumptions to invalidate evidence.  Not done.

 

Oh.  evidence indicates that for sasquatch, body mass is disproportionately greater than for a human of the same height.  We know Bergmann's rule isn't a law.  But anyone who tries to tell me that it's likely - any more than barely conceivable - that a bunch of random lies hoaxes and hallucinations would produce data conforming to Bergmann's rule is, well, I promised a long time ago never to say 'barmy' here.

[Guest]

This whole bioluminous eye topic is so ignorant to use that term to describe tapetum lucidum reflection..... its maddening

 

 

Yeah, I know. That was basically my point. Eyeshine is definitely a thing, caused my an outside light source reflecting off the inside of the eye, and people who mistake that for bioluminesence, which is a very specialized adaptation involving glowing bacteria... kinda casts doubt on whether or not they know what they're talking about.

[Guest thermalman]

Didn't you dismiss DNA evidence of the kouprey, brought up yesterday?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/45575-unknown-primate-dna/?p=810826

Seems like a contradiction?

No.  why would I?  The kouprey is a known species, right?

 

My point is that from a purely scientific standpoint, sasquatch has much more evidence than kouprey, the only difference being that the mainstream vouches for kouprey.  Which is a totally subjective difference.

 

Unless, I mean, you have seen one.  Or were personally present when all that DNA was sequenced.  Otherwise you're just taking people's word for it.  Not saying that's wrong; just putting your "personal knowledge" in perspective.

 

(There may be one kouprey photo that's better than P-G.  And that frankly doesn't look enough like other stuff I've seen for me to be sure it's a kouprey.  I'm taking folks' word for it.)

 

Most people seem unable to get just how much of what they "know" isn't in fact what they know but what they have been told.

 

In fact, if you read those links, you'll see that the only reason sasquatch isn't accepted is because scientists are in denial about it.

 

Unless you can show me the point-for-point refutation of those links.

 

You can't.

 

That's what denial looks like.

I hate to tell you, but in your own words, denial looks like this......

 

"A DNA sample will not be my proof; I'll always ask, really? What did it come from, and how do we know it's legit?

There is only one answer. Point to that big guy right over there that we can all see. As I see it, problem is that this has become a debate between people who just want to be right, rather than between people who just want to find out. DNA will satisfy one of those factions; absence of it - though not exactly a scientific stance - will satisfy the other.

Then there are those of us who say: where's the animal?"

 

Then is it correct to assume that you believe RD has a real BF body, even though there is no DNA backing the claim?

Edited February 5, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

Um, wow.  ^^^Just don't know what to say about some stuff but that.

 

Quite a leap.  How did you do that?

 

Oh.  You don't recognize the diff between "denial" and "caution."

Like I said:

 

[points to BlueQuote]

 

And we got a winner here.

I mean, you got the thermal of how you did that....right....?

[Guest thermalman]

They're your words, so you might want to explain how you're not in contradiction? And do you believe RD's BF body is real without DNA supporting evidence, as you stated you don't need for proof?

Edited February 5, 2014 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

^^^Um.  Wow.  I know, I repeat myself.

 

Is this another rant?

Is it that you care about RD so much, or that I do so little?  Explain.

[Guest thermalman]

Looking for simple answers for simple questions. Just wanting you to back up your position on a couple of your own points, without contradiction please?

[Guest DWA]

And for that...I re-quote the OP.

 

Dude.

 

WHAT!?!?!

[salubrious]

The dude in that last video seemed really lost.

 

The light source is of course the car he's in. Nothing bio-luminescent about it. And then he's got some thermal camera, but does not get out of the car to use it??

 

I am of the opinion (having not experienced this particular phenomena) that there is no bio-luminescence. Its all tapetum lucidium (perhaps active with very small amounts of light). Best I can make out, BF would have to have re-developed this trait, as ancient ancestors did not seem to have it.  But FWIW, Neanderthal had very large eyes compared to ours, suggesting that it too was nocturnal, maybe there has been enough time for this sort of thing to develop.