Faenor Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 OF COURSE THEY DO, and ALL THE TIME. The history of science is all one needs consult. The word "scientist" is actually overused. There are relatively few true scientists (Einstein, that's your model; Richard Dawkins, if one wants someone still alive); the rest are glorified techies with science degrees who continually confuse /quote] Yikes put down the bindernagel for a minute and look at a science journal, science textbook, your local university, or even a newspaper. Also as I pointed out before it is possible to prove bigfoot does not exist. With enough money, manpower, and cameras every acre of the continental us could be synced up to a computer. No bigfoot spotted=no bigfoot existing in the us. As long as bigfoot is not magical, or a space ghost, or a fel beast from hades. Them over you everytime, I'm talking about the Sasquatch skeptics here, them over you
BobbyO Posted April 5, 2015 SSR Team Posted April 5, 2015 Also as I pointed out before it is possible to prove bigfoot does not exist. With enough money, manpower, and cameras every acre of the continental us could be synced up to a computer. No bigfoot spotted=no bigfoot existing in the us. As long as bigfoot is not magical, or a space ghost, or a fel beast from hades. Absolutely, but even though what you're suggesting is completely unrealistic, I'm sure it wouldn't prove that Sasquatches didn't exist but would prove they did. 2
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 5, 2015 Posted April 5, 2015 ^^Yep, unrealistic, idealistic, naive and has never been attempted for any species. As a case in point, here in the UK the Mammal Society has just launched a call for records of rabbits. Yes, rabbits. The one organization dedicated to the study of native mammals admits it has no real idea about the range or population size of perhaps the most familiar wild animal in Britain. That's the reality of biological science.
Guest DWA Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 (edited) Yikes put down the bindernagel for a minute and look at a science journal, science textbook, your local university, or even a newspaper. Why? When it is obvious, from my own independent research of the topic, which Bindernagel and Meldrum have only supplemented and confirmed, that the sources you recommend are useless, because they swallow whole the toss-off opinions of people who have made the clear choice not to get informed about this? You might want to read "the" Bindernagel; he explains why those sources are useless...and he's right. You just believe what anyone tells you, without looking into it yourself? OK for you. Not for people who are really interested in a topic (which it is pretty obvious bigfoot skeptics are not, which makes them the most, um, let's say intriguing demographic I am aware of). Everything my life has told me about the world and how it works says your sources are missing the boat on this one...and mine are not. Also as I pointed out before it is possible to prove bigfoot does not exist. With enough money, manpower, and cameras every acre of the continental us could be synced up to a computer. No bigfoot spotted=no bigfoot existing in the us. As long as bigfoot is not magical, or a space ghost, or a fel beast from hades. Them over you everytime, I'm talking about the Sasquatch skeptics here, them over you But see, those of us who are paying attention to people who are actually doing their homework on this really don't care whom you take over whom. It's irrelevant, because you don't have the grounding in the subject to make an informed decision. Way it is. ^^Yep, unrealistic, idealistic, naive and has never been attempted for any species. As a case in point, here in the UK the Mammal Society has just launched a call for records of rabbits. Yes, rabbits. The one organization dedicated to the study of native mammals admits it has no real idea about the range or population size of perhaps the most familiar wild animal in Britain. That's the reality of biological science. Yes it is. Anyone who has thought about it much will tell you that there is no conceivable way to prove for certain through surveillance that any species does not exist. It would take much longer for me to explain why this is than it would take for an intelligent person to think about it for themselves, a technique I recommend. I would make a bet that, at any given time, the range and population estimates for any species are off by a margin that would astound us...if we could have the absolute data. Which, we cannot. If anything has been suggested over and over and over again in wildlife research, it is this. Edited April 6, 2015 by DWA
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 I wish the ignore feature extended to the quote function. I really do.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 ^^^How does he miss the bigfoots? (Always like referring back to the OP.)
Drew Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Every day the Cascades Carnivore Project doesn't find a bigfoot, is confirming the null hypothesis. Which is: Bigfoot does not exist. Edited April 8, 2015 by Drew
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 No, Drew. Just say no. And read up. How many years is this gonna go on? If one cannot show the scientific proponents wrong: one's hand holds no cards of significance.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Maybe all the Bigfeetses within the Cascades-Carnivore Project moved to another environment. That should insulate all for awhile.
BobbyO Posted April 9, 2015 SSR Team Posted April 9, 2015 You're wasted McSquatch, your hilarious humour gets me through each and everyday day.
Guest DWA Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 It's one thing being obsessed by something, it's another thing entirely and bordering on lunacy to spend big portions of time obsessing over trying to disprove that same something to people who have seen that something, on a Website deidcated to that something. - Bobbyo Just to, you know, emphasize a bit.
BobbyO Posted April 9, 2015 SSR Team Posted April 9, 2015 Sometimes I can't resist a bite even though I've slowed that down big time in recent years, it's the nature of the beast to though.
gigantor Posted April 10, 2015 Admin Posted April 10, 2015 Every day the Cascades Carnivore Project doesn't find a bigfoot, is confirming the null hypothesis. Again, BF is not a carnivore. 1
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 It's easy to avoid game cameras, as they are pretty noticeable. The animal would have to consciously choose to avoid the camera though.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 Even if bigfoot is an omnivore, they do eat meat at times. The problem here is that they may not be scavengers. They may like their meat fresh and only their own kills. The Cascades Carnivore Project camera trap setups are designed to attract scavengers. Bigfoot may not even be attracted to the bait setups and in most cases the game cams are pretty easy to spot, as OntarioSquatch noted.
Recommended Posts