Guest Divergent1 Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 No anger here. If something like this made me mad I would have never lasted in the Tar Pit. It is only disbelief that someone would make such an obviously incorrect statement. I don't think you are stupid or anything, I just don't think you thought that through well enough. And no one insinuated you are a racist. As I said, I only mention her because it was the only sense I could make of such a nonsensical statement. It was clear in your first reply to the question you had no idea what I meant, so I knew there was no connection. You were the one who kept on about her. I do apologise however if you think that was my intent. I assure you it wasn't. But lost in all of this is a good point you did make, that being, disease could have effected Sasquatch population. There is no doubt that disease took a terrible toll on many Native American tribes, small pox being the main one. So if Sasquatch shares enough DNA with humans, it is possible they would be subject to the same diseases as humans. It could be a reason they avoid us like the plague, pardon the pun. They know we carry disease. No, I didn't check my facts but went right on and repeated what I had heard years ago. Apology accepted.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) I should add: it's pointless to explain my (i.e., the proper, scientific) stance on this to anybody who will settle for nothing less than a body to move off his dime. Don't I know that from long experience. Edited April 8, 2015 by DWA
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 I couldn't understand what Sykes was saying about Zana's DNA. I know they have found some of the oldest DNA in African populations but it isn't clear whether he found that in Zana, or not, to explain the comments. Yes, I think if a scientist misrepresents their credentialing then all credibility is gone, that's why the call it credentialing in the first place.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 The industry standard can be conveniently ignored by those paying attention. If one cannot show the scientific proponents wrong, one's hand holds no cards of significance. We passed the point of there being a higher standards somewhere in bigfoot culture a long time ago. I have every reason to believe that the creator of the video I posted is 100% trustworthy in his belief in the thing. The video is not fake or even sensational but it has an emotive content that seems bordering on hysteria. Oh come on the guy sees a shape move through brush and suddenly he's about to loose the content of his bladder over exactly what? it sums up perfectly the weight that the believer community needs to put on vaporous vagueries in order to keep the ball in play. I have to ask again where is the stuff that real science can appreciate?
BobbyO Posted April 8, 2015 SSR Team Posted April 8, 2015 come on the guy sees a shape move through brush and suddenly he's about to loose the content of his bladder over exactly what? it sums up perfectly the weight that the believer community needs to put on vaporous vagueries in order to keep the ball in play. I have to ask again where is the stuff that real science can appreciate? 1) Believers who go down this road, yes I'm with you in general. Knowers/Witnesses, nope you're well wide as per usual. 2) Can't help with that I'm afraid, I was only about 14 when I saw what I saw and I sure as hell wasn't getting any closer had I even considered that 20 years down the line I needed to appease people I don't know on a public Internet forum with some form of "evidence", sorry.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 We passed the point of there being a higher standards somewhere in bigfoot culture a long time ago. I have every reason to believe that the creator of the video I posted is 100% trustworthy in his belief in the thing. The video is not fake or even sensational but it has an emotive content that seems bordering on hysteria. Oh come on the guy sees a shape move through brush and suddenly he's about to loose the content of his bladder over exactly what? it sums up perfectly the weight that the believer community needs to put on vaporous vagueries in order to keep the ball in play. I have to ask again where is the stuff that real science can appreciate? Clear answer and one you've been given lord knows how many times: redirect your question to Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel or Grover Krantz. I care not whether that is sufficient for whom you actually mean when you say "science," to wit, "scientists who cannot be bothered to do the science when certain topics are under discussion." Can't help that.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Clear answer and one you've been given lord knows how many times: redirect your question to Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel or Grover Krantz. I care not whether that is sufficient for whom you actually mean when you say "science," to wit, "scientists who cannot be bothered to do the science when certain topics are under discussion." Can't help that. When I say science I mean the same science that got us to the moon or split the atom and made air travel possible. There is only one science. It's been said that science proven exists whether belief exists or not. Krantz and Meldrum made a choice to believe and Meldrum by virtue of his still being alive has now shown to be less than a scientist doing science and more of a personality doing business. A proper vetting of Todd Standing would have nipped that fiasco in the bud. But it shown the need to believe stronger than the science of what proof is worthy of being believed. It is my contention that anyone that digs deep enough into the artifacts that count as solid proof in the believer world are no more substantial than those wooden stampers of yesteryear that were once front page news. Personally I don't care if a person believes in bigfoot but I do see it as something of a red herring that says many less than flattering things about the willingness of the times we live in to attach fact to things that are constantly shown to not have a basis in fact. Edited April 8, 2015 by Crowlogic
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 9, 2015 Author Posted April 9, 2015 Sykes never lied about his credentials, he worked as a professor for Oxford, and was considered a Professor Emeritus afterword. His creating an avenue for publishing academic papers was simply a formality, nothing abnormal for a retired individual seeking to be active in his field. The fact that the skeptics here are so quick to blur the issue, as have Sykes peers demonstrates to me willful ignorance. The issue is not Sykes but whether a sub species of humans has existed along side of us in isolated pockets. This seems to be the case with Zana, wake up to the significance of that discovery!
Guest DWA Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 When I say science I mean the same science that got us to the moon or split the atom and made air travel possible. There is only one science. Great. When it starts looking for bigfoot, give a holla. Sixty years ago would have been a good time; 47 was way way late. And it hasn't happened yet.
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 When I say science I mean the same science that got us to the moon or split the atom and made air travel possible. There is only one science. Great. When it starts looking for bigfoot, give a holla. Sixty years ago would have been a good time; 47 was way way late. And it hasn't happened yet. Science isn't going to look but science posers will continue to present the same bunch of nothing that paves the bigfoot highway.
Guest DWA Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Well, either science looks or the people calling themselves scientists aren't really that. Their job is resolving stuff like this. Nothing else with this volume and consistency of evidence remains unproven.
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 It's a matter of priorities. Unless there is some immediate economic benefit to finding bigfoot why would they look?
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 The issue is not Sykes but whether a sub species of humans has existed along side of us in isolated pockets. This seems to be the case with Zana, wake up to the significance of that discovery! Is that really a discovery? I thought that it was determined that she was 100% sub-saharan african, and that the possibility of her being from some earlier migration was just a wild theory. Is there evidence to support this that someone can direct me to? <LL>
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 10, 2015 Author Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately every non eyewitness of this creature is simply a believer, but I am a believer in wolverines and other creatures I have only seen on film, and although these creatures are better documented than Sasquatch, belief is required just the same. I have no problem saying I am a believer simply because I find the facts convincing, that you do not does not make you a scientist, nor does it make you any more rational than I, you simply are not persuaded by the evidence, and are therefore skeptical. I think the danger lies in blind belief or blind skepticism, and both exist around here no doubt. When science begins to close its eyes and become willfully blind to certain evidence it is no longer simply skeptical, nor is it being in any way objective. The fact is that they simply do not believe the notion and have chosen to no longer consider honestly anything put forth to support it, though a few honest scientists remain, and Sykes being persuaded to a certain degree allowed for such a possibility, that is what lead him to such a discovery, and now that honesty is bringing him under attack. Edited April 10, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Recommended Posts