SWWASAS Posted October 28, 2015 BFF Patron Posted October 28, 2015 I hope I live long enough to see all of these supposed scientists eat crow when someone brings in a BF body. We should start a list of all the stupid statements they have made over the years. One of my favorites is "It is impossible for something the size of a supposed BF to exist in the forests of the PNW because there is not enough food available to support a population" The NE PHD who said that apparently does not know that bears do quite well in the PNW and they are omnivores like BF. 1
roguefooter Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 ......the last sentence gives it away and it appears to be just another skeptic making fun of the subject.....UPs Well the blog writer is clearly a skeptic, but she's not the one doing the rebuttal. Lisa Bright is the one who will go over the bones, which will be in part 2 tomorrow. She was cited as a source in the bones paper. Also, not published yet. Helps to get the facts straight. Well that's why I said we'll have to wait until tomorrow. You guys should just relax. Did you not expect there to be rebuttal? Did you not expect any to be skeptics? It's like deflector shields have gone up and defensive mode kicked on just at the mention of a rebuttal. 2
BigTreeWalker Posted October 28, 2015 Author Posted October 28, 2015 Yes it was expected and desired. I sent them the link to my original work so they could have a better look at the bones. We would even invite them to have a look in person if they so desire. Not hiding anything and not hoaxing as is inferred in some of the comments.
roguefooter Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 Not so fast......here is the full paragraph from that link. Challenge Accepted! Luckily for me, I have the wonderfully brilliant Lisa Bright as a colleague at MSU, and her research on taphonomy is cited in the Mills et al. 2015 study. Today, I’ll be sharing the background and possible interpretations of what the bioarchaeology and archaeology of Bigfoot would be if there was evidence, and tomorrow Lisa will share her research and discuss the issues with the Mills et al. 2015 studies. To preface this- Bigfoot is a combination of myth and hoax, not reality. This is a fun Halloween post, not something to be taken seriously. Enjoy! ......the last sentence gives it away and it appears to be just another skeptic making fun of the subject.....UPs You also have to take into consideration how much time this person spends working on archeological sites and doing research- check out her blog. Imagine spending all your time doing this, never coming across Bigfoot bones, and Bigfooters claim it's a big cover up and people like her are a part of it. You probably wouldn't take it very seriously either.
Guest WesT Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 So what are you trying to say? No review of the evidence just a rebuttal? I've heard skeptics refer to this type of minset as confirmation bias. And no, since the evidence is just a Halloween joke to them the "rebuttal" should be treated the same. A joke. Hopefully someone will take a serious look at it one day. Maybe someone already is. Thanks for posting this RF, even if it is just a Halloween spoof.
roguefooter Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) ^If it makes you feel better about it then you go ahead and view it that way WesT. I wouldn't want anything to get in the way of your beliefs. Blanket dismissal is much easier than refuting any points that they make. Lisa Bright is the professor that was sourced for the paper. Whatever her opinion may be on the paper, I'm sure she will back up her points since she is obviously well educated on the subject. People here had no problem taking her work seriously when it supported the paper. Now that it comes time for her to weigh in on the paper then suddenly she is not to be taken seriously anymore.. She hasn't even submitted her article yet and the damage control is already in high gear. Edited October 28, 2015 by roguefooter 1
Guest UPs Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 The comment about being a fun Halloween post hit me the wrong way as IMO, BTW and the others involved in the paper seem to have put in a great deal of time and effort documenting in the paper and it doesn't appear this person is taking it seriously. Maybe I have just been into BF for too long and took it out of context. BTW,s work truly interests me as something did leave evidence in the form of markings on those bones and I hope this isn't another case that ends up in the 'unknown' category.
Guest WesT Posted October 28, 2015 Posted October 28, 2015 What part of Halloween joke did you not understand RF?
roguefooter Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 What part of Halloween joke did you not understand RF? There are two people involved here writing two parts to the article- the blogger writing about bigfoot in general, and the professor writing the response to the paper. When I asked Lisa Bright about a Halloween joke, her comment was: "My part is a serious discussion of six main points of the papers. It's Katy's blog so she does have creative control." Two people, two opinions. It's easy to understand when you ask questions. 1
dmaker Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Part II is up. https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/challenge-accepted-is-there-archaeological-evidence-of-bigfoot-part-ii/ Conclusion: "In Lisa’s opinion, the damage to the elk and deer remains has a much more logical explanation than Bigfoot." Edited October 29, 2015 by dmaker
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 But, but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it was bigfoot really it was it was............... . If only................
SWWASAS Posted October 29, 2015 BFF Patron Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Part II is up. https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/challenge-accepted-is-there-archaeological-evidence-of-bigfoot-part-ii/ Conclusion: "In Lisa’s opinion, the damage to the elk and deer remains has a much more logical explanation than Bigfoot."[/size] Another case of science making judgments without actually examining the evidence. If Lisa had personally examined the bones, went over the physical processes that the researchers used to make their determinations, then concluded something different I might give some credence to her difference in opinion. Her report was basically dismissive and did not address the evidence. As a PHD candidate she is not only not going to go out on a limb to support a controversial conclusion but actually expects to get points of professional credibility by debunking the bigfoot association. There is way to much of that sort of thing going on in academia. The fact that she even weighed in on this reveals debunking was her intent from the beginning. Edited October 29, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
dmaker Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 If the methodology is flawed from the start, why would she need to tromp through the woods looking at bones? "However, her research concluded that it wasn’t possible to identify the scavenger to species, or potentially even taxa, based only on the tooth impact marks. She had remains that she watched bears scavenge, that did not match the typical tooth impact marks proposed by the literature. " It seems to be her opinion, based on research that she has done, that you cannot identify a scavenger based only on tooth impact marks.
Recommended Posts