Sasquatch 2014- Status

[dmaker]

In considering the evidence, you have literally thousands of eye witnesses, hundreds of which come from respected careers with no reason to lie or receive personal gain for telling their story.  That's not counting the hundreds of years of Native American history and legends regarding this subject!  Hair samples that cannot be matched to any known subject.  Foot prints, some of which have had expert review of the dermal ridge imprints as being authentic and impossible to fake.  Countless pictures, films and videos that cannot be discounted and DNA samples processed by not one, but multiple labs which reached the same decision. 

 

This very same level evidence supports criminal and civil proceedings daily here in the U.S.  It is reliable evidence, yet not one government agency or science related institution will openly give this subject any serious consideration!  When you look at some of the other crazy studies our tax dollars will support, I find this position of denial much more than mere coincidence.

What DNA samples processed by what labs? Care to provide some links?

[Guest]

 

 

People who dismiss all this with a wave of the hand are showing how little of it they have actually looked at.  Science says you can't dismiss it unless you can come up with a better explanation; and those of us who are paying attention know that none of the alternatives even make sense.

Um no. Science says nothing of the sort. Science says that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer if data requires we dismiss an hypothesis. 

In considering the evidence, you have literally thousands of eye witnesses, hundreds of which come from respected careers with no reason to lie or receive personal gain for telling their story.  That's not counting the hundreds of years of Native American history and legends regarding this subject!  Hair samples that cannot be matched to any known subject.  Foot prints, some of which have had expert review of the dermal ridge imprints as being authentic and impossible to fake.  Countless pictures, films and videos that cannot be discounted and DNA samples processed by not one, but multiple labs which reached the same decision. 

 

This very same level evidence supports criminal and civil proceedings daily here in the U.S.  It is reliable evidence, yet not one government agency or science related institution will openly give this subject any serious consideration!  When you look at some of the other crazy studies our tax dollars will support, I find this position of denial much more than mere coincidence.       

All hair samples that have been analyzed by DNA have proven to be known species. ALL "unknown" specimens have either gone missing or been destroyed so we do not have them. They are not evidence of anything now.

 

Dermal ridges have not been shown to be original to the prints in general. Most frequently they resemble artifacts of pouring the plaster into the print. This suggests they are NOT dermal ridges hence not impossible to fake.

 

Countless pictures, films and videos of blurry and barely perceivable objects are not evidence of anything except poor cameramanship.

[Guest DWA]

Actually, no, I'm right.  What you say doesn't contradict me.   Science may say "I don't know."  But it forbids dismissing an explanation unless a better one exists.  Your confusion is a byproduct of the tendency to conflate evidence and proof, two very different things.

 

And science may say "I don't know."  Scientists don't.  At least the vast majority of them - the ones who don't make the big discoveries and win the Nobel Prizes - don't.  The mainstream is hostile to the topic and won't even allow it to be discussed.  That is the one reason why we are where we are.  Come on, think about this.  Do you honestly think the circus you see around this topic would exist if the mainstream were seriously discussing it?  I hope the answer is obvious.

 

Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  Many prints show dermal ridges vouched for by experts in that field.

 

The PGF is the great exception to your last sentence.  The only serious analyses done of it vouch for it as genuine.

Edited July 27, 2014 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

DWA that John Green quote you have is not only applicable for scientists but many skeptics who hang out here.    They "know" that BF does not exist so any evidence, experience or whatever to the contrary is not worthy of examination just to make sure that they don't know anything about it.

 

Meldrums request for DNA samples is interesting.    The Sykes study did not seem to care about chain of custody,  storage,  and collection methods.    That in itself makes me think Sykes really did not want to or expect to find DNA.     But Meldrum better do a better job answering his emails or he will never make contact with anyone with any materials to test.    Most of the videos I have seen where DNA is collected the collection and storage media is faulty.     People have not done their homework on how to do it.   

[Guest DWA]

Actually, Sykes - and a number of his British colleagues, specifically at the Natural History Museum in London - are very specific about what I've been saying about Sykes all along:  the only thing he has done is eliminate from further consideration as an unknown primate what has been sent to him.

 

Sykes doesn't at all seem to think that's it, yeti isn't real.  And, of course, as a scientist it would be impossible for him to do so.  As he puts it:  "Science doesn't accept or reject anything; all it does is examine the evidence and that is what I'm doing."

 

Exactly.

[Guest]

Actually, no, I'm right.  What you say doesn't contradict me.   Science may say "I don't know."  But it forbids dismissing an explanation unless a better one exists.  Your confusion is a byproduct of the tendency to conflate evidence and proof, two very different things.

 

And science may say "I don't know."  Scientists don't.  At least the vast majority of them - the ones who don't make the big discoveries and win the Nobel Prizes - don't.  The mainstream is hostile to the topic and won't even allow it to be discussed.  That is the one reason why we are where we are.  Come on, think about this.  Do you honestly think the circus you see around this topic would exist if the mainstream were seriously discussing it?  I hope the answer is obvious.

 

Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  Many prints show dermal ridges vouched for by experts in that field.

 

The PGF is the great exception to your last sentence.  The only serious analyses done of it vouch for it as genuine.

I'd like to be directed to some of these reports of unknown primate hair samples. Everyone that has been tested for DNA has come back as known to the best of my knowledge. If you know of any such reports I'd like to be directed to them as I am apparently looking in the wrong places.

 

Dermal ridges have also been claimed as pour structures by experts. This becomes a debatable situation and as such is not proof or evidence of either side of the argument.

 

PGF: I am already onrecord as stating that this is the video I compare all other to. It is the only one I find compelling but I am sorry to say it is still a video of something that looks like a man inan ape suit. That IS what bigfoots look like you know.

[MIB]

I'd like to be directed to some of these reports of unknown primate hair samples.

 

Ok.   Open your copy of "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science."  Turn to page 263.   Read the first couple paragraphs.

 

They point to an unknown primate.   Of course, we don't have a type sample of "unknown primate", but certainly until Primaticus unknownicus is accepted by science, this will have to do.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

Dermal ridges have been claimed as "pour structures [sic]" by experts?  Um, that's wrong.  Not by experts in dermal ridges they haven't.  Not any you'll point to, anyway.  The very reason the footprints are compelling evidence is the reaction to dermal ridges by experts in that very field.

 

A bigfoot resembles a human like I'm a dead ringer for Madonna.  And that's what the only learned analyses of PGF say about it:  not human.  There is no one in any ape suit that has ever been made that looks anything even remotely like the PGF subject.  If that's a hoax, one of history's great geniuses constructed it...then vanished.  You are betting that?  Oh.  OK.

 

Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  I've read about them, and I'm not looking anyplace any member of the public curious about this topic can't.

Edited July 28, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Ok.   Open your copy of "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science."  Turn to page 263.   Read the first couple paragraphs.

 

They point to an unknown primate.   Of course, we don't have a type sample of "unknown primate", but certainly until Primaticus unknownicus is accepted by science, this will have to do.

 

MIB

I don;t have the book because I saw the movie. What oart of the movie does 263 correspond to?

I'll take another look at it when I get a chance.

[Guest]

Dermal ridges have been claimed as "pour structures [sic]" by experts?  Um, that's wrong.  Not by experts in dermal ridges they haven't.  Not any you'll point to, anyway.  The very reason the footprints are compelling evidence is the reaction to dermal ridges by experts in that very field.

 

A bigfoot resembles a human like I'm a dead ringer for Madonna.  And that's what the only learned analyses of PGF say about it:  not human.  There is no one in any ape suit that has ever been made that looks anything even remotely like the PGF subject.  If that's a hoax, one of history's great geniuses constructed it...then vanished.  You are betting that?  Oh.  OK.

 

Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  I've read about them, and I'm not looking anyplace any member of the public curious about this topic can't.

http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/ca-6/Because this site does have evidence that some "dermal ridges" are indeed the result pouring and not actual dermal ridges. This means that dermal ridges (whether real or imagined) are not good evidence of anything.

 

And bigfoot looks like a man in a suit that is all there is to it. Why are they referred to as ape-men and man-apes. Why do so many equate them with neandertal, cavemen, heidelbergensis etc? Why do so many claim they seem so human? They do so because bigfoot looks like a man in a gorilla suit. Denying that is denying reality. delusional really.

"Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  I've read about them, and I'm not looking anyplace any member of the public curious about this topic can't."

 

I looked up some citations for you on dermal ridges. I am only asking for your specific citations about the hair and their provenances. I have read a lot about this stuff myself and everything I've read indicates the samples that were "shown" to be unknown primate have all been destroyed or disappeared and no longer available for study. Without them we do not have evidence of unknown primates. plain and simple.

[dmaker]

Dermal ridges have been claimed as "pour structures [sic]" by experts?  Um, that's wrong.  Not by experts in dermal ridges they haven't.  Not any you'll point to, anyway.  The very reason the footprints are compelling evidence is the reaction to dermal ridges by experts in that very field.

 

A bigfoot resembles a human like I'm a dead ringer for Madonna.  And that's what the only learned analyses of PGF say about it:  not human.  There is no one in any ape suit that has ever been made that looks anything even remotely like the PGF subject.  If that's a hoax, one of history's great geniuses constructed it...then vanished.  You are betting that?  Oh.  OK.

 

Many hair samples come back "unknown primate."  I've read about them, and I'm not looking anyplace any member of the public curious about this topic can't.

Incorrect. Chillcut himself agreed with Crowleys experiment. 

 

" â€œMatt has shown artifacts can be created, at least under laboratory conditions, and field researchers need to take precautions.â€

 

http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

 

 

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/

[dmaker]

I don;t have the book because I saw the movie. What oart of the movie does 263 correspond to?

I'll take another look at it when I get a chance.

 

From Chapter 15:

 

"Conclusive identification depends on a match to a known sample of hair, i.e., an established standard. Without a confirmed sample of sasquatch hair, any hair truly originating from a sasquatch would necessarily languish in the indeterminate categoty. Such a standard is unlikely to be acknowledged until hair is pulled directly from a sasquatch body by a qualified analyst."

 

I have the Google Books version, so my page numbers will not match up with the print version. But that quote is from Ch. 15, p281 of the digital version.

Edited July 28, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

antfoot:

 

Dermal ridges:  that's one case you have there.  Inconclusive (damning?  No!) at that.  Debunk these if you can:  

 

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

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

 

Aw, let's toss in another:  http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/92-population-clines-of-the-north-american-sasquatch-as-evidenced-by-track-lengths-and-estimated-statures

 

Non-dismissable.  

 

You keep talking about proof.  Were there proof this conversation wouldn't be happening.  There isn't proof because (1) no one is looking on anything like the required scale and (2) that is mainly because the mainstream is not addressing the question.  What I've laid in front of you - those measly three articles alone - is compelling, and there are articles and books and report databases beyond that that I don't think you are reading.  Or thinking about, one or the other, Meldrum's and Bindernagel's for starters, and Krantz and Green and Alley beyond those.  I've never heard anyone who could demonstrate that level of acquaintance with the evidence, who also made a good study of the reports, toss off things like you are saying.  You are simply not demonstrating that level of acquaintance.  Period.  Don't feel bad about that; no other 'skeptic' is either.

 

No.  A bigfoot doesn't look like a suit guy and that is all there is to it.  What you are referring to are the naive attempts of witnesses to grope with what they saw, something for which they have no other referent.  Anyone who thinks these look or act (40mph running speed, casually stepping over five-foot fences, breaking green trees several inches in diameter like matchsticks, etc.) like men in suits either is not reading the reports, or not thinking about them enough.  (And sure not paying enough attention to the PGF.)  I mean, a penguin looks like a man in a tuxedo too.

 

I think I know what most folks' problem is.  It is inability to discern patterns in the overall evidence, which stems mainly from not being acquainted with enough of it.  People tend to look at the evidence piece by piece - is this one fake?  Since this is impossible, what cracks can I discern in this story? - and wind up groping to find cracks in stories, which they never really do, instead of stepping back, and asking themselves:  what is the likelihood of random wildcat hallucinations hoaxes lies misidentified bears etc. adding up to a biologically-correct-to-a-T picture of a large temperate-zone omnivore?  With behavioral and physical characteristics squaring firmly with a hominoid primate, most of which are known only to primatologists?  Which the evidence says is happening.

 

At least you demonstrate acceptance of the possibility.  (And I note, on another thread, concede the possibility that numerous hair samples might have generated more interest had current techniques been available to test them.)  It's a start.  But you really need to up your game on the evidence.  Frequency and coherence are what make otherwise inadmissible things like anecdotes and footprints compelling.

Edited July 28, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Frequency and coherence are what make for great urban myths and legends.  Physical evidence is compelling, not anecdotes. I've read quite a few reports as well as the top non-fiction books by Meldrum and Bindernagel and others.  Where are these primate characteristics in the reports that are known only to primatologists? You make this claim constantly, but I don't see any evidence of it. I don't see anything in the reports that could not have been picked up at the zoo, watching Animal Planet or Nat Geo, or even just reading other bigfoot reports. 

 

 

You are expending an awful lot of energy in the wrong direction in my opinion. You bend over backwards to try and make the anecdotal evidence  appear more impressive than it is.  But it doesn't work. Anecdotes are what they are. They will never be the proof you want them to be. Never. You would think you would want people to focus on evidence that could potentially prove the case for bigfoot rather than ooh and ahh over the anecdotes endlessly.  Focus more on physical evidence of the type that can be tested by science.  To lecture on and on and on and on about the anecdotes constantly is not going to accomplish anything for the bigfoot claim. By doing what you do, you are essentially advocating that the bigfoot claim just spin its wheels while scolding mainstream science for not jumping in.  Bring some more impressive physical evidence to the table and mainstream science will get involved. Harp on about anecdotes and the PGF and nothing more, and you're never going to get traction.   Unless, of course, you enjoy the status quo so much that you don't want it to change perhaps?

Edited July 28, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

UM.  YOU TOO.