Guest DWA Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just wanted to add: we have proof now. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2706150/Megan-Fox-reckons-mythical-Bigfoot-working-Teenage-Mutant-Ninja-Turtles-Transformers.html Talk to me about compelling. That's compelling. I call dibs on tent share when we head out to confirm the confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. yes and all such hairs have been destroyed or lost as best I can find. DNA tested specimens using modern techniques have been identified as best I can find. Some older DNA testing techniques were fairly primitive compared with modern techniques. They only sequenced mDNA as well I believe. Resolution of the data wasn't so good back in those days as it is today. Any of those old hair samples could have been tested using modern techniques for a more accurate reading. Until such samples turn up, the proponents shouldn't try to use them as evidence. If we had a sample we could at least determine if an unknown primate was living in North America and even determine how closely related it was to humans and other apes. Pity none of those samples are still available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Let me dismiss this then. "There is a curious and persuasive consistency about the hourglass footprints. They present an aberrant but, nevertheless, uniform pattern. This is hard to reconcile with fakery. One might pose the question: who other than God or natural selection is sufficiently conversant with the subtleties of the human foot and the human walking style to 'design' an artificial foot which is so perfectly harmonious in terms of structure and function? " Footprints come in an assortment of shapes and sizes for bigfoot. Fake footprints have definitely been made. The "design" of the footprints appear made for a large-bodied animal because the researchers assume they come from a large-bodied animal and retro-evolve them to fit. Due to these options, no bigfoot footprint is actual evidence of bigfoot because of association with known fraudulent materials. Until we can define a proper bigfoot footprint, we have no way to discern which are really, really good fakes. Experiments to produce casts with pores prints in them in loess soil have failed as well. Again pores are not indicative of reality yet. Not while there are multiple options. 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. I do not keep talking about proof. I keep talking about EVIDENCE. They are different concepts. And certainly there are at least some who are looking for evidence. "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." So witnesses don't know what they saw? So many proponents claim that so many people can't be fooled but you just now admit they don't know how to describe what they saw. This invalidates almost every bit of bigfoot lore and is actually quite similar to my stance : ) How can we "know" what any of these people have seen? Just because I think Patty looks like a man in a costume doesn't mean that she is. I am simply honest that bigfoot is likely to be very similar to humans and that mistaken perceptions can contribute to the phenomenon. Otherwise it might as well be a manbearpig. 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. Not all discernible patterns represent a real phenomenon. Bigfoot reports are gathered and examined and researchers try to explain details. That's all any of this is. Whatever they come up with will have to match reports and fit into some ecological system because researchers believe bigfoot fits in the North American ecosystem somehow. Every detail HAS to be explained in such a way to make it fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Hello All,I have bowed out of my own thread because ONCE AGAIN there are those who simply cannot resist turning it into a science/no science OR an existence/ non existence OR an evidence vs. proof debate. No resolution mind you; just endless round and round. Same arguments over footprints, same arguments over DNA, same arguments over anecdotal evidence.....By mostly the same individuals. One would think by now that there would be some kind of realization of the deadlock and simply acknowledge it and walk away. So the question remains: WHY, WHY, WHY?? Might as well leave on a sour note: antfoot, it IS a man/bear/pig. So there folks- Run with it. Edited July 28, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 antfoot: the lack of acquaintance is showing again. I agree with hiflier and am bowing out. The evidence says what it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, In the interest of trying to salvage this thread (or not) would you at least think about returning any experiences you may have in the field to the members of this Forum? THAT is what the thread is about after all. Edited July 28, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 We're getting closer to confirmation all the time; as good writing on the topic as has been done has come out in the last decade; if confirmation doesn't happen in the next five years - ten at the outside - I won't be stunned, but it will be the single biggest example I have seen in my life how stupid our species can be when it fixes its mind on it. I've been following this closely since the mid 1990's and for the first 5 or 10 years I thought we were close to discovery. The only things that have changed are the new characters and now we have habituators.. I suspect that the "sasquatch status 2024" and forward threads will read just like this one. Hopefully Im wrong and Norseman shoots one... wouldn't that be something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Actually, since 1967, really since pretty much forever, in terms of what needs to happen short of incredible luck...nothing has changed, one bit. Other than the evidence, which has mounted exponentially. This is squarely on the scientific community. It's time for them to get off their duffs and follow the few intrepid leaders that have shown the way to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 31, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Incorrect. Chillcut himself agreed with Crowleys experiment. " “Matt has shown artifacts can be created, at least under laboratory conditions, and field researchers need to take precautions.†http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/ http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence/ What about the cut Chillcut found on two track casts that had healed over? And the tracks were decades apart and 400 miles apart? It doesn't seem to me that a pouring artifact would have identical detail?\ Edited July 31, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 In no way was Chilcutt saying yep, throw up our hands, nothing can be done, all things found in casts are casting artifacts. Caution's always important in science. And dermal features show up on casts, reliably. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Did anyone say ALL artifacts are casting artifacts? Nope. All tracks are suspect because of casting artifacts and hoaxed tracks. Plain and simple. If two consecutive tracks have the same "cut" mark on them only means the foot or plank used to make the track had a cut mark on it. Whittlers can make a cut mark on a foot shaped plank. Might not even have been planned but just an accident of making a footprint-maker. Any slight thing on a footprint is going to be scrutinized for clues and over-scrutinized. Hypotheses will be formed for every little detail whether the footprint is legitimate or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 There are many trackways for which it's silly to think a hoaxer would go to the trouble, or do it that well. The only people for whom "all tracks are suspect" are those who have not examined the track evidence at all. It's pretty tantamount to saying 'all artifacts are casting artifacts.' It's like saying 'since we've seen kids wearing zebra suits for grade-school plays, the zebra is suspect.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 "There are many trackways for which it's silly to think a hoaxer would go to the trouble, or do it that well." Your personal incredulity does not transform your claim into a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Neither does yours. Only unlike the case with yours, in my case my personal incredulity is backed up by evidence, lots of it, saying 'a person didn't do this.' The fact here is that blatant fakes aren't even part of the conversation on the evidence. To make them so is a classic straw man argument. Serious proponents have set the fakes aside as irrelevant. Edited July 31, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ^^ That is quite ironic since there are plenty of examples where it has been proven that " a person did this", and precisely ZERO examples where is has been proven that " a bigfoot did this". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts