Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[Guest DWA]

After 47 years we have not had enough time? seriously? I agree money and time are important to finding bigfoot but to say we have not had enough is ridiculous.

 

No, it's the answer, and to refute it you must show why you are right.  No one is looking, for zero time, for all intents and purposes, period, a matter of statistical fact.  Unless you think I am 'hunting sasquatch' when I go for a beer run.  Or that Jane is when she takes Theodore to the bus stop.  Or that Beyonce is when she goes on stage.  Etc.

 

More likely, we have not applied that money or time in an efficient manner. We need better hypotheses about bigfoot than we have right now.

 

...and he still awaits the decisive refutation of the scientific proponents antfoot has promised.  Fortunately he is not holding his breath.

 

One good reason for maintaining high standards is to preserve one's reputation.

 

Part of standards that high is that no one in 1967 could live up to them.  You mentioned Planet of the Apes as if it were some sort of refutation.  The clearest people in suits that Hollywood ever produced, and that was state of the art for the time.

 

Padding under the suit is standard for many costumes. Would reduce or even eliminate sagging.

 

No it would not, no it could not; in fact it's one of the deadest of dead giveaways.  Someone needs to read him some Bill Munns.  Or watch padding being padding in an ape suit, it's pretty obvious.

 

A human skeleton without clothing found in the soil would not mean a bigfoot. No one is saying a costume was buried with the body.

 

Whatever that meant:  it wasn't a costume.  Technical analysis has spoken.  (Someone needs to read him some Bill Munns.)

[Guest]

"

...and he still awaits the decisive refutation of the scientific proponents antfoot has promised.  Fortunately he is not holding his breath.

 

 "

 

I never promised a refutation but the lack of results from pursuing the same methodologies for the last three or four decades seems compelling refutation enough to me.

[Guest DWA]

Hoaxes can persist for a long time unexposed. Was there not an alleged yeti skull or scalp on display for a couple of generations that was only recently DNA analyzed and revealed to be fake?

 

Nobody ever considered that a particularly serious piece of evidence.  Piltdown went on for decades; as soon as the state of knowledge was conceivably sufficient, it was debunked.  (And it was nowhere near PGF in quality.  Not even same universe.)

 

Time & Money:

 

Several individuals (Slick, Erickson & Hersom, come to mind) have thrown boatloads of cash and in Tom & Adrian's case, considerable time into the effort, with Slick's involvement beginning decades ago.

 

And, what of substance has been rendered, to-date for all of that?

 

A cottage industry for certain groups?

...running expeditions that wouldn't have found a yeti had Western civ depended on it (read about them).  OH.  Even one of them had a sighting; it also found intestinal parasites in alleged yeti dung that were new to science.  Basic principle of microbiology:  new parasite = new host species.

 

"

...and he still awaits the decisive refutation of the scientific proponents antfoot has promised.  Fortunately he is not holding his breath.

 

 "

 

I never promised a refutation but the lack of results from pursuing the same methodologies for the last three or four decades seems compelling refutation enough to me.

Nope.  It means nobody's looking.  Compare your typical bigfoot three-day traipse with any seriously funded effort.  No comparison.

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I don't consider the pgf a particularly "serious piece of evidence".

[Guest]

DWA

 

so no one is looking for bigfoot and that is why we haven't found them? huh! and here I thought we were all looking for bigfoot in one way or another here.

 

New parasites do not imply new host species. Most species have more than one parasite species to contend with. When a new species is found there is likely to be at least one new parasite species as well. An understandable mistake.

Edited July 24, 2014 by antfoot

[Guest DWA]

Wait.  You think this is field work we're doing?  I've found the problem, Mabel!

 

I'll go with the scientists who tell us that about parasites over you.

I don't consider the pgf a particularly "serious piece of evidence".

Which is one of the more quaint things about your stance on this.  I'll go with the scientists who disagree with you.  (The ones who agree are demonstrably uninformed, as has been shown many times in many threads here.)

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I don't consider the pgf a particularly "serious piece of evidence".

I consider it compelling but not like proof quality evidence. It is a piece that can go either way very clearly for me. I still compare most videos to the PGF. The figure in the film is definitely more realistic than most video figures seem to me. It just moves right to me. Completely subjective of course!! I know there is the possibility of film speed changes that may have altered the pace of Patty. But the movement still strikes me very much like the lion I saw and the moose and black bears that I occasionally see hereabouts. Massive animals move a certain way and I see this when I watch the PGF.

Wait.  You think this is field work we're doing?  I've found the problem, Mabel!

 

I'll go with the scientists who tell us that about parasites over you.

Which is one of the more quaint things about your stance on this.  I'll go with the scientists who disagree with you.  (The ones who agree are demonstrably uninformed, as has been shown many times in many threads here.)

Oh so scientists are your friends now? cool. Most species have more than one species of parasite. Am I wrong on this? If we find a new species it may well belong to a host species we are already familiar with. How is that so wrong headed? Any scientist who studies parasites will tell you I am right I suspect.

 

And yes, I am working this field of bigfootology also. I am not in the field but I peruse data online and in books just like you do. I make reasoned judgments about what I read based on the scientific material I have read for years. That is science. I do not need a degree or fancy funding to this. No one does. That's what makes science more egalitarian than many other careers. You can poke fun all you want but you only make yourself look petty and judgmental.

[Guest DWA]

 

Oh so scientists are your friends now? cool.

 

Not sure you are getting how this works.  I like scientists who are showing me they are using their science, not people who yell I'M A SCIENTIST! to cover up their failure to do so.

 

Most species have more than one species of parasite. Am I wrong on this?

 

Irrelevant.  What you don't seem to know is that common parasites of all species are carefully catalogued.  New parasite, new host.

 

 

If we find a new species it may well belong to a host species we are already familiar with. How is that so wrong headed?

 

It's not if you have PROVEN that you've found a new parasite in a known host.  Which is unlikely for the reason I just pointed out.

 

Any scientist who studies parasites will tell you I am right I suspect.

 

But you don't check.

 

And yes, I am working this field of bigfootology also. I am not in the field but I peruse data online and in books just like you do. I make reasoned judgments about what I read based on the scientific material I have read for years. That is science. I do not need a degree or fancy funding to this. No one does. That's what makes science more egalitarian than many other careers. You can poke fun all you want but you only make yourself look petty and judgmental.

 

It's not poking fun to say, correctly, that insufficient field time and insufficient money should be expected to produce insufficient results.

[Guest]

DWA what is the appropriate amount of money and time needed to find bigfoot?

oh and not all parasites of known animals are known parasites. Parasites evolve quite readily. As a parasitical species moves from host population to host population, they adapt and evolve further. This constant flux of genotype makes new species evolve into being. They do not have to move to a new host species to do this. Although that does happen as well. Most of the worst human diseases are parasites we picked up from our domesticated animals. These parasites are evolving on us right now into new species of parasites.

[Guest DWA]

DWA what is the appropriate amount of money and time needed to find bigfoot?

 

Somewhere between zero and one trillion dollars.  But it has to be spent on people spending more than three days in the field...which almost never ever happens.  Show me an expedition and I'll show you why we don't have the proof.

 

Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

That "not enough money" excuse again. Maybe I remind you of the distribution of your target.

 

 

Let's no forget the fisherman would unintendedly caught the megamouth shark. I guess he wasn't informed that he needed a grant from a major university.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

See?  Where do the expeditions go?  the COUNTRY.  HE IS HIDING IN THE CITY, PEOPLE...

[Guest LarryP]

A hallucination is an experience. Does that mean that I should consider the pigeons that decorated my living room wall to have been real? They at least did not carpet my rug with manure and I appreciate that but they probably were not real.

 

 

We're talking about "experience" regarding BF, not your own personal experience with hallucinations regarding Pigeons.

 

You've never seen a BF, I have. So that experience changed my perception with regard to Bigfoots existence completely..

 

In my case my perception went from having never given their existence much thought one way or the other to knowing without a shadow of a doubt that they do in fact exist.

 

So now there is nothing subjective about their existence to me. 

 

BTW, the Pigeons were real. Just as dreams are real.

Edited July 24, 2014 by LarryP

[Cotter]

I have decades of experience not just with hallucinations but with the scientific method.

 

Hi antfoot - have you ever hallucinated a bigfoot?  If so, what did it look like?  Tall/short?  Snout?  Color?  

Thx.

Edit - sorry if you already answered this.

[Guest]

Sorry Cotter no bigfoot hallucinations.