norseman Posted April 22, 2015 Admin Posted April 22, 2015 Depends on the evidence. But, proof is built on good supporting evidence. Not in biology.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Norseman, your partially right. Proof of species and nomenclature (meaning where does this species belong)... Yes. General Biology is built on collected studied evidence.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Depends on the evidence. But, proof is built on good supporting evidence. This is certainly true in most cases, but when it comes to Bigfoot, the only thing that will be considered proof is a specimen.
Yuchi1 Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Said specimen should be alive and well, as such of it's own volition and not shot dead by some egomaniacal fool.
WSA Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Every now and then, the desire to fabricate stories for attention becomes too strong in some of our pretend researchers. Unfortunately, it's what makes up a great deal of online Bigfooting. Any genuine research will seem dull in comparison... I think you are a little quick on the draw there, if that was directed at SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT. I've found him to be not one to exaggerate or (as far as I can tell) embellish his experiences. I agree with Norseman's description of him: Squared away. Do you and he have a history I'm not aware of?
SWWASAS Posted April 22, 2015 BFF Patron Posted April 22, 2015 I was not sure if that was directed at me or not. We don't have any history I know of. I can back up my claim in this case with an audio recording I have already submitted to the forum. Not very good but that is what I got. People are sniping at me because of the infrasound thing too. I did not believe in it either until I experienced it. I also have digital data of that as evidence that is available for examination. So people are free to believe what they choose about my integrity.
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Depends on the evidence. But, proof is built on good supporting evidence. ...and yes, in biology. What biology textbooks are people reading? What about science do people need to go back and take Science 001 to understand? s.m.hville. The evidence on hand, right now as we speak, would be sufficient to yield one of two things within weeks with a mainstream effort: 1) proof, or 2) such conviction on the part of the researchers that they wouldn't stop until proof was obtained. Period. Because that is the history of biology, people.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 The evidence on hand, right now as we speak, would be sufficient to yield one of two things within weeks with a mainstream effort: 1) proof, or 2) such conviction on the part of the researchers that they wouldn't stop until proof was obtained. Are you sure about this? Looking at the history of groups such as the NAWAC, even years of effort wasn't enough to totally convince everyone in their group. They have dozens of people going out every summer in a place where there are supposedly a lot of them and still no body or DNA.
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Know why they're still out there? 1) you don't have to convince *everybody,* just enough to keep the effort going; 2) any evidence that convinces somebody convinces somebody...and it doesn't have to be a body or DNA. These people aren't even out there full time. And there is not a one that isn't totally committed to go 'til proof. Oh, I am totally sure of it. Anybody that even goes out full time will have made a significant study of the evidence. It won't take much to convince them the effort is worthwhile.
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Admin Posted April 23, 2015 Norseman, your partially right. Proof of species and nomenclature (meaning where does this species belong)... Yes. General Biology is built on collected studied evidence. The point I'm trying to make is that in Biology you need a type specimen to have proof of a species. You poke it, prod it, weigh it, measure it and dissect it. And if another specimen comes your way? You can compare the two and decide if it is the same or different enough to have a different species. Harder to do with extinct species and things are constantly being revised, but not nearly as much so as say Membrane theory and "God" particles in physics. Or black holes or worm holes. You cannot put a black hole on a slab. Absolute proof is elusive, evidence and best guess? Sure. Biology is much more exact especially with Mammals.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 23, 2015 Posted April 23, 2015 Norseman, I do agree about the body as a positive ID. But the evidence I have been presenting in the "What about the bones?" thread is also biology. I do think we are in agreement.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 24, 2015 Author Posted April 24, 2015 EEEKS...Oh well, its bound to happen...almost every active thread here digresses into this argument. What puzzles me is why anyone would waste their time arguing against it, I have a hard enough time justifying my time here even given some real encounter experience. Some of you guys really need to find a life outside of this place! I mean take a back country hiking trip, or kayaking adventure...Most of us came to this conclusion do to our affinity with the outdoors, not hanging around our computers looking for answers.
Guest DWA Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 What I am not getting. The armchair won't get one close to beginning to think about maybe guessing at an understanding of what's going on here. Sometimes, the frontiers of science are bootsole-friendly. This is one of those times. Bigfoot advocates are on the bleeding edge of the natural sciences, one of the most fun places on the planet to be. And most of us got there, if not through direct encounter, through an abiding interest in nature; recognizing natural sign when we come across it; and knowing what evidence is and what can be done with it.
norseman Posted April 24, 2015 Admin Posted April 24, 2015 Norseman, I do agree about the body as a positive ID. But the evidence I have been presenting in the "What about the bones?" thread is also biology. I do think we are in agreement. I think what your doing in that thread is awesome. But you cannot take your tooth impression data and get us over the hurdle. But hopefully it may get us into the right spots the right time of the year.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I have been following the voucher specimen thread as well as here, so I wasn't sure where to post this; but here goes. I keep reading about DNA testing. We have bones that are probably covered with the saliva of the animals that made those impressions, as well as that of the prey animal. We have discussed DNA testing, but we don't have much hope that it won't come back as contaminated! It is the nature of how the DNA tests are interpreted. So in reality only through a verifiable voucher specimen could DNA tests be done. Then any sample testing done before or after that could be compared to see if it is what it is claimed to be. As far as the forensic bone evidence is concerned. It can take us as far as... "yes there is an unknown and unidentified animal out there doing this." We are hoping this line of investigation will encourage more scientific studies into this subject. Maybe in the process a way could be devised that a voucher specimen wouldn't be required. But, I just don't know. My observation from past practice is that yes the government and the private sector have good reason not to have bigfoot proven. As BobbyO said... Money, money, money! Also past observations show that when it comes to 'assumed' required protection. Congress goes overboard from external pressure. (Overly concerned and usually uninformed people.)
Recommended Posts