Bonehead74 Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 And just how do you know for a fact its all garbage? I don't know if you're bragging, complaining, or trolling. All of the above?
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) OK. I was out on a hike with some friends that own 40 acres up near Outing, Minnesota. Most of their land is inaccessible by trail or road, but there is a bog on the land and some old growth trees, so we braved the brambles, ticks and mosquitoes to go take a look back about 2 years ago. While there I noticed a human-looking print beneath a tree. I found more as I descended a small hill toward the bog. What I want you to consider is that some people like myself just don't feel its worth it, even when they have the use of a moniker. Thanks you have moxie. Whereas some folks are in the business of downgrading people who believe or research I've said it many times that a great many are not stupid people. Now this said there is a researcher up in the Northeast who has been dead on the money when calling out hoaxers and analyzing data that are often cited as real. I actually look forward to his offerings as his sense of humor is pretty good. Very recently as in the past 72 hours he has come forward saying he is totally baffled by something they experienced on an extended research trip deep into underpopulated old growth protected forest. His experience can only be one of several things. A mundane yet unusual happening, a possible bigfoot activity or a hoax designed to demonstrate how even perceptive people can be fooled. But in any event they (his team) have been able to describe each and every piece of commonly thought to be bigfoot evidence for what it is with the animal and the animal's reasoning for effecting the environment that left signs. So this current mystery is very interesting and it clearly is giving that person and group many reasons to go back there. So not everything is instant scoff and the outcome will be interesting no matter which way it goes. Edited June 8, 2015 by Crowlogic
norseman Posted June 9, 2015 Admin Posted June 9, 2015 The skeptics/non believer community is accused of being narrow minded and unwilling to grasp or appreciate the evidence for bigfoot's existence. There are reams and reams of older evidence such as the PGF but consider this a request for up to date evidence. Many claim to possess excellent recent evidence and that is the thrust of this post. Excellent evidence of the past five years. Photos and videos with explanations. Simple reportage can be saved for the reports threads. i would say the bombshell in the last five years that has rocked the scientific community that lends itself well to cryptid hominoids world wide? Was the discovery of the hobbit. This sub species of Homo Erectus was not suppose to be where it was found, look like it did, nor be dated to being so close to present.......... 1
bipedalist Posted June 9, 2015 BFF Patron Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Yah, and it's not as certain to be a modern human dwarf or syndromic individual like the Phaige states in another thread: .....Given the young age of the skeleton, some experts have suggested that H. floresiensis represents a modern human with dwarfism, Down syndrome or other pathologies that might explain the small stature and brain. But no modern human pathology can explain all of the Hobbit’s features. Notably, the wrist bones of H. floresiensis don’t contain certain hallmark features of the foot, face and wrist bones of modern humans, such as a boot-shaped trapezoid bone in our wrists. That hasn’t stopped scientists from arguing about whether H. floresiensis truly constitutes a unique species. So where (evolutionarily speaking) did the Hobbit come from? Not the Shire. Perhaps the most widely accepted scenario is that H. floresiensis evolved from a version of H. erectus. Coincidentally, H. erectus remains have turned up on the Indonesian island of Java. The earliest H. erectus fossils unearthed outside of Africa, at Dmanisi in Georgia, have also shown that these hominins were not always the large strapping specimens we suspected them to be. Dmanisi skeletons are smaller and retain some primitive features. This all hints that a group of early H. erectus could have made its way to mainland Southeast Asia, and a rogue population could have then been stranded on Flores and given rise to the Hobbit. Could its origins be even older? That would certainly make things interesting. Given the similarities in anatomy to both Lucy and Homo habilis, it’s possible that the Hobbit had an older ancestor. If that were the case, we’d need to rethink the spread of ancient humans out of Africa. “It would mean that a whole branch of a human evolutionary tree in Asia had been missing until those fateful discoveries in Liang Bua,†writes Chris Stringer, an anthropologist at the Natural History Museum in London, in a comment paper published in Nature today. However, an Australopithecus species like Lucy probably couldn’t have made the trek from Africa across Asia to Indonesia—it isn’t until the rise of Homo erectus that we see legs strong enough for walking long distances...... Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ten-years-flores-hobbit-human-evolution-fossil-puzzle-180953108/#x1wsAfaxTHr1LG8Q.99Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter Edited June 9, 2015 by bipedalist
WSA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Crow...you said, "A great many are not stupid people?" Well, hang onto that thought like grim death, and you'll get something to think about, I'd just opine.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Crow...you said, "A great many are not stupid people?" Well, hang onto that thought like grim death, and you'll get something to think about, I'd just opine. Conversely a great many are stupid people. Hanging onto anything like grim death is the mark of stupidity according to some.
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Actually I don't expect anyone to present anything. However it was worth the shot to know who can stand and deliver and who is talking the game. Worried about someone stealing your thunder? Watermark your photos. I am more skeptical when show and tell becomes hide and seek or no show period.. The skeptics/non believer community is accused of being narrow minded and unwilling to grasp or appreciate the evidence for bigfoot's existence. There are reams and reams of older evidence such as the PGF but consider this a request for up to date evidence. Many claim to possess excellent recent evidence and that is the thrust of this post. Excellent evidence of the past five years. Photos and videos with explanations. Simple reportage can be saved for the reports threads. Really, these two posts are precisely why the accusation is flat correct. There isn't anyone on this board who has talked to you (a better exemplar of the behavior that draws the accusation could, actually, not be found) who doesn't know you wouldn't change what you think a jot were anything you are asking for given to you. At least boy, so I would hope! These simply perpetuate the "proof or trash" mentality that shows zero appreciation for how science accumulates evidence and uses it to plot the research essential to proof. Accusation, pretty much nailed. Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 i would say the bombshell in the last five years that has rocked the scientific community that lends itself well to cryptid hominoids world wide? Was the discovery of the hobbit. This sub species of Homo Erectus was not suppose to be where it was found, look like it did, nor be dated to being so close to present.......... To bad the Hobbit wasn't a living breathing find.
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Conversely a great many are stupid people. Hanging onto anything like grim death is the mark of stupidity according to some. You provide more than one reason I am just not gonna comment on that, but let it hang there. To bad the Hobbit wasn't a living breathing find. Which of course means nothing. To first, a scientist; to second, anyone decently acquainted with science and how it works.
WSA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Ahhh...of course my next wish for you Crow was to be that you achieve (use?) the discernment to reasonably tell one kind from the other. Dare we hope this might be in your future? Or do you retreat once again, after offering this slim glimmer of appreciation of how stuff works? Stay tuned...
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 The only thing I ask is that Crow not display the temerity to try this approach on any thread that is addressing evidence being discussed by intelligent people. It'll get reported. I'll slum here; it's my opportunity to train future scientists. But I am not tolerating it in discussions of the evidence and I would hope I am not alone.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Really, these two posts are precisely why the accusation is flat correct. There isn't anyone on this board who has talked to you (a better exemplar of the behavior that draws the accusation could, actually, not be found) who doesn't know you wouldn't be convinced by anything you are asking for were it given to you. At least boy, so I would hope! Negative and here's why. All one needs to do is look at a few wildlife photos and videos to know that it is indeed possible to have photo evidence that is for all intents and purposes beyond reproach. There are tens of millions of such photos and each and every day more and more are added. Bigfoot evidence is nearly 100% questionable and the usual suspects making the usual excuses won't change the state of the art as it stands. But just as an example here's a photo of a very rare animal. There are likely less of these in the world than there are bigfoot. Yet there is nothing ambiguous about this photo it is by all reasonable measure a photo of a real animal. This is what is so blatantly missing from every single bigfoot research person or group from day one to now. I can furnish the bigfoot community with fantastic photos of rare animals all day long but what does the bigfoot community offer the as it's evidence? We know what it offers and at the very best it's fair to midling but the overwhelming bulk of it is embarrassingly poor across the board. So indeed when the bigfoot community can stand and deliver the caliber of evidence universally seen and done in the documenting of the natural world maybe they will have a case but I'm not holding my breath. Edited June 9, 2015 by Crowlogic
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Negative...and you have already been told why. And such high hopes for you, too.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) You provide more than one reason I am just not gonna comment on that, but let it hang there. Which of course means nothing. To first, a scientist; to second, anyone decently acquainted with science and how it works. Having done science and professionally too I might add I understand valid and invalid lecturing on how science is supposed to work. Edited June 9, 2015 by Crowlogic
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) This is what I am trying to point out to people who seem to have the hardest time getting it. The "proof or trash" approach is the worst science imaginable; and it is pretty much the only thing bigfoot skeptics do. Scientists do not deny; they trust, but then they verify. If you say you saw a unicorn, the idiot laughs. The scientist believes you. Then he decides whether your report can be combined with enough else to give him something to search on. If not, he waits. (Occupying himself, of course, with other things, like his job.) This is the only rational approach! No the scientist does not believe the unicorn is real. Who is filling you with the idea that scientists are willing to believe anything that crosses their path? Part of developing a scientific mind is to be able to make the educated guess as to whether or not that which is put forth is a valid path of exploration. The scientist will take an inventory of what is known about the topic/object in question and whether there is anything to it. Scientists are far from being automatic believers. Edited June 9, 2015 by Crowlogic
Recommended Posts