dmaker Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ^^^But there's still no rational reason not to blame you guys for it, so I do. Scientists do what the public tells them, much more than folks like you might think. (They rely on it for their, you know, paychecks.) They're staying away from this topic because it's career poison. And it's career poison because the public stays uninformed about it; laughs at it; and takes no time to educate themselves on it. So yeah, I blame you guys. Don't take it personally or nuthin'. All you'd have to do is say: hey guys! Shut these proponents UP; get out there and prove them wrong. But nooooooo. It's all about you on this. So yeah, I blame you guys. Disotell should be ashamed of himself. I don't care where all you go being a scientist. I call you on whether you behave like one when it comes to this topic. Disotell has a ways to go. (And yeah, I peeked, and found out this wasn't the kneejerk response I was expecting to my blame-the-skeptics. But I still do.) Obviously asking science to shut these proponents up by getting out there and proving a negative is not the correct, or even sensible, response. But what has happened lately are things like the Sykes study. So instead of the incorrect and pseudo-scientific approach of asking for someone to prove that bigfoot does not exist, we have credentialed scientists, leaders in their field even, asking for alleged bigfoot evidence to examine. All the proponents have to do is prove their case. And they were given access to the perfect study with which to do so. They failed of course, but that has nothing to do with the science involved in the study. The science was fine. The evidence failed.
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Clearcutting has been proven to be a boon for wildlife as the stagnation of mature forest is eliminated by a rejuvenation of habitat that would otherwise only have been created via wildfire. Clearcutting is a temporary boon to a select guild of species adapted to exploit edge habitats such as early stage scrub or tall herbage for instance. It is universally to the detriment of species characteristic of established structured habitats such as mature woodland, many of which are of conversation concern. Mature woodland will always contain more species and more species groups than any other terrestrial habitat. I would say that we need to be very concerned about the removal of woodland habitats in general if we are even remotely serious about biodiversity loss. Once gone it doesn't come back easily, nor do the species within it.
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Obviously asking science to shut these proponents up by getting out there and proving a negative is not the correct, or even sensible, response. But what has happened lately are things like the Sykes study. So instead of the incorrect and pseudo-scientific approach of asking for someone to prove that bigfoot does not exist, we have credentialed scientists, leaders in their field even, asking for alleged bigfoot evidence to examine. All the proponents have to do is prove their case. And they were given access to the perfect study with which to do so. They failed of course, but that has nothing to do with the science involved in the study. The science was fine. The evidence failed. Wrong the Scientist (Sykes) refused to accept samples like SY's that had already been vetted as probably BF when previously tested. If he truly wanted to prove or disprove Ketchum and or just look into it himself , he should not have skipped those samples. Clearcutting is a temporary boon to a select guild of species adapted to exploit edge habitats such as early stage scrub or tall herbage for instance. It is universally to the detriment of species characteristic of established structured habitats such as mature woodland, many of which are of conversation concern. Mature woodland will always contain more species and more species groups than any other terrestrial habitat. I would say that we need to be very concerned about the removal of woodland habitats in general if we are even remotely serious about biodiversity loss. Once gone it doesn't come back easily, nor do the species within it. Its the areas of transition of woods to open land that yield most game and I should have included that to my point. These Boogers don't need miles of dense forest to make it, just narrow thin strips of woods along creeks, streams and rivers bordered by pasture or farm crops that also connect other larger patches of cover is fine for them.
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 Obviously asking science to shut these proponents up by getting out there and proving a negative is not the correct, or even sensible, response. But what has happened lately are things like the Sykes study. So instead of the incorrect and pseudo-scientific approach of asking for someone to prove that bigfoot does not exist, we have credentialed scientists, leaders in their field even, asking for alleged bigfoot evidence to examine. All the proponents have to do is prove their case. And they were given access to the perfect study with which to do so. They failed of course, but that has nothing to do with the science involved in the study. The science was fine. The evidence failed. No, the evidence says you're wrong. But haven't we been here before. Scientists could start wondering why scientists disagree with them, and you could just get read up. Why do I not bet on these things happening? Oh...maybe....'total investment in not being made to look absolutely out to lunch?' 'Wishing hoping thinking praying that the society will just stay ignant on this?' That, maybe?
dmaker Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 The evidence says I'm wrong? How does the evidence say that science should not test the evidence? Would you like to explain how the evidence was not properly tested by Sykes? Otherwise, it is unclear to me where you think I was wrong.
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ^^^And I root for a flat earth too. Problem walking on this one, no matter how far short of truly round it falls.
dmaker Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 And word salad again. You need to expand your repertoire...
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 "...probably BF..." What does that even mean? Probable or Likely ...sic Samples offered , samples not accepted , not given the opportunity to be looked at by top DNA guy. I know this particular sample well , can't vouche for any others.
WSA Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 My prediction is we should be hearing from Bipto any second to flag for us why this same 'ol is not giving him any reason to stick around. Just guessing.
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 You think that these goofy awkward feet are from a creature that spends a lot of time in the trees? I said a big flexible foot would make climbing a tree easier. Don't see why it wouldn't. If you could wrap it around the truck, branches, etc. Absolutely.
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ^^^Humans are danged good at it...but not as good as apes, for a number of reasons, most of which sasquatch would appear to have licked. Don't know who thinks "goofy awkward." No they're not. They seem very well adapted to a number of applications...and considerably more flexible than ours.
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 I have observed some of Plum Creek's clearcuts in LeFlore county and they appear to have left nursery trees behind and there were some areas, mainly on mountain faces, they couldn't get to and those are still intact. Clearcutting has been proven to be a boon for wildlife as the stagnation of mature forest is eliminated by a rejuvenation of habitat that would otherwise only have been created via wildfire. As I have also stated numerous times that more carefully selected cuts and some clear cut areas in pine forest yield a rapid grow back of deciduous broadleaf brush, trees and grasses and therefore increasing deer and rabbit etc food sources and their populations increase so the deer predators will also be stable and or increase too. They survived the massive clear cuts of 100 + years ago they will survive smaller cuts too You guys are talking out of your orifices. These diverse, healthy forests are being cut down to make toilet paper and replaced by monoculture forests. One kind tree as far as you can see. There are ways of removing trees that don't destroy biodiversity and allow the fauna to adapt and continue to thrive, but denuding the land of all growing plants and replacing all of them with the tree that grow the straightest, the fastest, and is most easily harvested is not it. I would say that we need to be very concerned about the removal of woodland habitats in general if we are even remotely serious about biodiversity loss. Once gone it doesn't come back easily, nor do the species within it. This.
Guest DWA Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 ^^^And that is what is happening, word, and not just there, and this by somebody who knows what a healthy forest looks like.
Guest Posted June 19, 2014 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) My prediction is we should be hearing from Bipto any second to flag for us why this same 'ol is not giving him any reason to stick around. Just guessing. Luckily, I'm heading back to Disneyland in less than 24 hours, so I won't need to wade through it much longer. ...and this by somebody who knows what a healthy forest looks like. At least someone who goes out of their way to spend a lot of time in them. So just to summarize the past couple of pages, cutting down old mature forests to the dirt and planting one simple tree in its place is good and there have been hundreds of DNA studies conducted that prove the 8 foot tall hairy flatfooted rock thrower is a human. God, the internet is depressing. Edited June 19, 2014 by bipto
Recommended Posts