A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

Doesn't matter.  As those in the know know well...science is a discipline that, when it comes to this topic, we practice...and ^^^they don't.

 

Good catch DWA!

 

 

Posted Today, 08:47 PM

Bodhi, on 15 Jul 2015 - 6:52 PM, said:

 

 

If I can Only find stats on the number/percentage of scientists Who Support What I agree To, And think it's malarky I'll post those for you as well.

 

Edited July 16, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest DWA]

That generalization is based on experience with the people on this forum. If you don't want to be generalized then maybe you should start thinking like individuals?

[looking for a greater example of irony on this board] [nay, in Western Civ over the past 2,000 years]  [fail]

 

How about doing what we so clearly did...AND READ...and start forming your own opinions?  Rather than parrot the suspected opinions of people whose opinions one has never even examined for content?

[roguefooter]

^What part of "based on experience with the people on this forum" don't you understand DWA? I even gave examples.

 

You were one of the people that just agreed with the false claims rather than bother with the facts:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51455-show-your-best-evidence-if-you-please/page-15#entry911819

 

You agreed it was a hoax and called it "malicious". You didn't "clearly" read anything, or "formed your own opinion". Even after you were shown the claim to be false, nothing changed.

 

The exact same thing happened in this thread:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41129-tree-manipulation-wood-structures-what-is-the-evidence/page-23#entry899726

 

Gumshoeye totally contradicted himself about his claim, and your response was:

 

"I just wish that skeptics of all stripes would start recognizing the breadth and depth of real-world skills and knowledge and plain old bootsole verification the proponents bring to this area of study."

 

Like I said before- you along with others chose the group over the facts.

Edited July 16, 2015 by roguefooter

[Bodhi]

So called men of science once thought the world was flat so what does that have to do with the price of rice these days?  

You seem so desperate. "So called men of science"? You do know that the george washington didn't really chop down a cherry tree, nor did he have wooden false teeth. Also, sailors, scientists and the ancient Greeks did actually know that the earth is round.

 

BTW; the idea that we only use a certain percentage of our brain is total B.S. as well. And just in case you want throw up any other popular myths maybe check out snopes beforehand next time http://snopes.com/

[Guest Crowlogic]

So called men of science once thought the world was flat so what does that have to do with the price of rice these days?  

And what have the men of and women of bigfoot science specifically given to the world that's up to round earth standards?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

1. It's not skeptics who view sasquatch as myth, it's 80% of the u.s. population.

80%. 

Just so we're clear let me say that again - 80%. Everyone, other than the deluded, rests their cases on science, I thought you were a cop or something. DNA, fingerprints.....science works.

 

 

Argumentum ad populum. The majority can be wrong (ex. Nazi Germany).

[SWWASAS]

1. It's not skeptics who view sasquatch as myth, it's 80% of the u.s. population.

80%. 

Just so we're clear let me say that again - 80%. Everyone, other than the deluded, rests their cases on science, I thought you were a cop or something. DNA, fingerprints.....science works.

 

2. Are you suggesting that your pet cryptid should be deemed "real" by science based on the current evidence? How do you support that stance? What other animal was acknowledged by science based on the level of evidence for sasquatch?

 

Isn't this special pleading and yet another logical fallacy?

Special pleading?   Interesting that you use those words since Kitakaze uses the same words all the time.    Same playbook or what? 

 

No I did not accept your tasking to listen to all the 64 episodes of The Bigfoot Show to find the one which you mentioned Todd Disotell was in.    The index of the shows gives no clue as to which episode that was and you sure did not provide any sort of link.         

Edited July 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Bodhi]

Argumentum ad populum. The majority can be wrong (ex. Nazi Germany).

Chasing,

Please not that I acknowledged that the majority could be wrong in the post below.

wow, ok Swamp. Congrats on being in the minority.

It's actually 64,892,936 but who's counting and less than HALF the number of u.s. citizens who belive we're being visited by little green men (48%). Heck Swamp, 11% think Elvis is still alive so take it easy on your happy dance....

Also dear Swamp to remember, as you are dancing to 80's pop, that 259,571,744 u.s. citizens think it's all a fairytale. Doesn't mean that the majority is right but those are the facts as they stand today.

 

If I can find stats on the number/percentage of scientists who think it's malarky I'll post those for you as well.

[SWWASAS]

Bodhi seems to question my understanding of mitochondrial DNA testing.    That is the only testing that can be performed on hair.      Here is a wikopedia article that describes the process of species taxonomy and barcoding to identify a species.    As the article mentions, a bar code accepted type of  species is established.   He questions my interpretation of the species typing process so you can read for yourself how the process works.  .     As the article mentions,   there is considerable discord among scientists about the ability of mitochondrial DNA to discern an unknown species.     Mitochondrial DNA is not nearly as complex as nuclear DNA and species typing is not as definitive.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding    Over 160,000 species of plants and animals have been typed and added to the data base.  

 

I stand by my statement that if a tested hair sample did not have MDNA that could be sequenced,    that sample could or would not provide any information on species of origin.    So BF hair very well could have been tested an not yielded any results.  

Edited July 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Chasing,

Please not that I acknowledged that the majority could be wrong in the post below.

 

So why use it in the first place when you know it's a logical fallacy?

[Bodhi]

Special pleading?   Interesting that you use those words since Kitakaze uses the same words all the time.            

Special Pleading is a commonly known type of informal logical fallacy, there's nothing interesting about two people using the term. I direct your attention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Bodhi seems to question my understanding of mitochondrial DNA testing.    That is the only testing that can be performed on hair.      Here is a wikopedia article that describes the process of species taxonomy and barcoding to identify a species.    As the article mentions, a bar code accepted type of  species is established.   He questions my interpretation of the species typing process so you can read for yourself how the process works.  .     As the article mentions,   there is considerable discord among scientists about the ability of mitochondrial DNA to discern an unknown species.     Mitochondrial DNA is not nearly as complex as nuclear DNA and species typing is not as definitive.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding    Over 160,000 species of plants and animals have been typed and added to the data base.  

 

I stand by my statement that if a tested hair sample did not have MDNA that could be sequenced,    that sample could or would not provide any information on species of origin.    So BF hair very well could have been tested an not yielded any results.  

I question your ability to listen to a podcast.

[Guest DWA]

Special pleading?  Bigfoot skepticism is special pleading (there are none 'cause I have never seen one; there are none 'cause I haven't read up; there are none 'cause I haven't thought about it sufficiently...)

[Guest DWA]

This applies, y'all...and in precisely the opposite way bigfoot skeptics think:

 

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma24d4u7ob1rufxh4o1_500.jpg

[Bodhi]

Special pleading?   Interesting that you use those words since Kitakaze uses the same words all the time.    Same playbook or what? 

 

No I did not accept your tasking to listen to all the 64 episodes of The Bigfoot Show to find the one which you mentioned Todd Disotell was in.    The index of the shows gives no clue as to which episode that was and you sure did not provide any sort of link.         

Dude, so weak. I found the Disotell episodes in about 5 minutes. No, I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. I can see how diligent you are, I will bear that in mind when I read your other claims. Can I fluff your pillow or get you a cool drink before I go?

So why use it in the first place when you know it's a logical fallacy?

It was a response to Swamp's repeated 66 million chant, a part of the thread, you must realize that?

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

 

It was a response to Swamp's repeated 66 million chant, a part of the thread, you must realize that?

 

Two wrongs make a right fallacy...........