roguefooter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 We already did. What are your conclusions? Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Hair morphology not human, does that mean not classifiable? Otherwise if not human, then what was it determined to be? If it could not be accurately classified, then why not? No holotype would translate to unknown or unclassified. They are mystery hairs. Hair that can be described as unknown primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 But the dna is not unknown primate, which is the question being asked.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 No one has ever said any more for them than 'you can't toss them out.' But you do, because you insist that human nature and human perception play a role in this that there is no serious evidence it plays at all. Oh? Since you believe human error doesn't play a part, that means that we can safely assume that humans aren't having these sightings or making these reports. So who are? Little green aliens from Alpha Centuri? Time traveling robots from an alternate past? Is it a Sasquatch trying to pull our collective legs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Pulling a prank is human nature. You'd have to be pretty foolish to think that doesn't apply in Bigfoot sightings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Pulling a prank is human nature. You'd have to be pretty foolish to think that doesn't apply in Bigfoot sightings. You'd also have to be pretty foolish to think that explains ALL bigfoot sightings. The trick in this biz is to figure out how to discern which is which, not just run blindly rubber-stamping stuff as truth or BS without any reason other than wishful thinking for either. That's the challenge an HONEST skeptic, not a scoffer, face. IMHO, of course. MIB Edited April 24, 2014 by MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) When there is not a single scrap of genuine, confirmable bigfoot evidence to be found anywhere despite thousands of claimed encounters and sightings, then the logical conclusion is that the source of all bigfoot reports is something other than a bigfoot. Take your pick of those possibilities. That information is probably only of interest to historians or psychologists. Edited April 24, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 24, 2014 When there is not a single scrap of genuine, confirmable bigfoot evidence to be found anywhere despite thousands of claimed encounters and sightings, then the logical conclusion is that the source of all bigfoot reports is something other than a bigfoot. Take your pick of those possibilities. That information is probably only of interest to historians or psychologists. Again, confirmable in whose estimation? YOUR approval is not required nor reflective of legitimacy. (Nor is mine.) Sometimes we get a bit too big for our britches, take ourselves waaay to seriously. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 24, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted April 24, 2014 Dmaker: 20+ inch footprint casts validated by more than one PHD as not hoax or human is not a scrap of confirmable evidence? In what and where did you get your PHD so that we can give your discounting of that or any evidence any credence? What's more why are you here? What Government agency or public university do you work for? Just curious. RR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Again, confirmable in whose estimation? YOUR approval is not required nor reflective of legitimacy. (Nor is mine.) Sometimes we get a bit too big for our britches, take ourselves waaay to seriously. MIB Confirmable by the standards laid out here for classification: http://iczn.org/ Hoaxed tracks can fool people, even phds. It has happened in the past. What is needed is unambiguous biological evidence that returns a result that supports the bigfoot hypothesis. No such a thing exists currently. I find absolutely, mind boggingly, incredulous that if there were as many bigfoots running around as the reports suggest that we would be completely devoid of anything approaching real, confirmable biological evidence. The only conclusion left at that point would be that we are not dealing with an actual animal, but a fantasy. Why am I here? Fantasies are interesting to observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 No one could be here for that. I mean, if that's what's interesting, all I can say is: Wow. Particularly when we're talking about reality; you seem to be fantasizing, actually. This is happening. The people who say it's not; think that means it isn't; and can't muster the curiosity to even scratch the surface of the topic to find out what is actually being talked about...well, wanna talk about mind-boggling, I can't even believe they exist, but evidence is that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 It's of no importance to me whether you understand or agree with my, or anyone else's, motives for being here DWA. Last I checked you were not running the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Observing fantasies is so much worse than actually having them that I'm sure I don't have to go into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ^^ So you're saying that observing people fantasizing about bigfoot is so much worse than actually fantasizing about bigfoot? Well, guess I will just have to take your word for that one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Confirmable by the standards laid out here for classification: http://iczn.org/ That was a poor choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts