Yuchi1 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I think it would be impossible for any judge to convict a person who has just proven the biological find of the century. Unless, this "find" DNA analysis came in to warrant a felony homicide charge. You could then always do the book deal and TV interviews from your jail cell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yuchi, thats a chance I'm willing to take. Because I'm convinced its not a member of the genus Homo. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary such as evidence of butchering game with stone tools or cooking their meat on a fire? Regardless we will be cutting new ground and after its discovery I would be at the forefront of pushing legislation through to get the species protected. But I think its imperative to prove the species real at any cost first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) I don't know that bigfoot science has stalled so much as it has never really started. When of I think of "Science", I think of ongoing studies and their published results in recognized and respected journals. There are no bigfoot studies published in any recognized journals. So, where is the science? There are a lot of amateurs claiming to do science, but those results are not published in any recognized journals. Even the professional scientists that have demonstrated an interest in bigfoot, Jeff Meldrum for example, publish no bigfoot papers in recognized journals. So, what bigfoot science is Dr.Meldrum doing, exactly? I don't see evidence of any. The jaguar in Arizona was mentioned up thread a little bit. This is an interesting piece of footage, for sure, but it does not help the bigfoot claim at all. There may be only one jaguar wandering around Arizona and it showed up on a trail cam. Bigfoot sightings are claimed in the thousands and yet we have no clear trail cam images or footage of any bigfoot. No reasonable explanation is offered that does not include special pleading like bigfoots know what trail cams are and avoid them, or wild speculation about footage that exists, but is kept secret. Edited February 4, 2016 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Of course we don't kill Gorillas, Orangs, Chimps, Dolphins, and other animals that are highly intelligent and self aware (except maybe, cetaceans) and you could argue that an exceedingly rarer species than any of them that killing would greatly impact extinction. 1 per 100000 square miles as an estimate I heard from a Meldrum broadcast. So if there are 400 or so, what are the risks? What if you can get your samples from a capture and a CT scans? Admittedly killing is easier, (if you can find one and it gave you a shot window). Although they possibly demonstrate weaving and language, perhaps we should look for the use of rocks to break open marrow bones at kill sites. That's was our path of development. So tool use does not have to imply stone tools. Other Hominds can use stones and construct twig tools. Just throwing out some ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Who is the "we"? Chimps are killed for bush meat and dolphins are slaughtered for food in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2016 Welcome back big D! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hello dmaker, Hey I've been arguing that a BF's daytime eyesight isn't all that good. What's your take on that? ....J/K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Plaster casts and grainy photos can and have been faked.....so they are dismissed immediately. At least DNA gives you a shot at redemption. Or if your pro kill like me? Then photos and footprints are hopefully leading you to the spot where you collect a type specimen. game over. But by themselves casts and photos are nothing. Definitely not arguing that casts and photos are proof. I mean, they aren't gonna convince the uninformed, that is for sure. But they are compelling evidence when they can be analyzed - as they have been - by relevant experts who can make the case for them. And as leads? Not gonna argue with you there. Edited February 4, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2016 I find Bill Munn's report on the PGF compelling but I dont think its put a dent in main stream science. And for me? Its a dead issue either way. The PGF is almost 50 years old. If it shows a real creature which I think it does? Surely the creature is dead now, and what about the species? I mean if our best lead is 50 years old? Stick a fork in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Hello dmaker, Hey I've been arguing that a BF's daytime eyesight isn't all that good. What's your take on that? ....J/K That is a good example, hiflier. Supposition is rampant within bigfootery. There is nothing wrong with being curious about a new thought or possibility. That is how hypotheses are formed, after all. The problem with this subject is that you have no means to test your hypothesis using the scientific method. There are no bigfoot subjects available to you for study. So what happens? People talk about something, and make speculations and take guesses, and far too often these guesses and speculation end up part of the bigfoot canon. Many proponents will state with certainty that bigfoots have a tapetum lucidum. This is impossible to know without proper observation of a subject, or subjects. That does not stop it from becoming a "bigfoot fact". Who knows, maybe a year from now it will become common knowledge that bigfoots have poor day vision. Bigfoot science needs to start before it can stall. Edited February 4, 2016 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I find Bill Munn's report on the PGF compelling but I dont think its put a dent in main stream science. Oh, tell me. When you've been waiting 50 years for a buncha numnutz to start getting some feeling in those bad boys, it gets old. What more do they need to look at? (No, skeptics, "a body" is what ignant people say. They're the ones responsible for showing *me* the body not the other way around.) And for me? Its a dead issue either way. The PGF is almost 50 years old. If it shows a real creature which I think it does? Surely the creature is dead now, and what about the species? I mean if our best lead is 50 years old? Stick a fork in it. Well, I'd say - as we did earlier - that recent concentrations of reports (particularly track casts) are far better leads now than PG. But somebody has to follow them...and spend more than two days at it. This ain't deer hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yuchi, thats a chance I'm willing to take. Because I'm convinced its not a member of the genus Homo. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary such as evidence of butchering game with stone tools or cooking their meat on a fire? Regardless we will be cutting new ground and after its discovery I would be at the forefront of pushing legislation through to get the species protected. But I think its imperative to prove the species real at any cost first. Problem (for you) is the absence of evidence they are not of the genus Homo. Of well, I'm sure your family will be there at the greybar hotel on every visitation Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 Hello DWA, Definitely not arguing that casts and photos are proof. I mean, they aren't gonna convince the uninformed, that is for sure... So who is considered the "informed"? Since casts and prints aren't proof I mean. And even for the "informed" the anecdotes don't add up to proof but instead only add up to BELIEF. So it follows that the "informed" have a belief that is based on casts and photos that aren't proof and stories that aren't proof but when added together......somehow create the "informed"? IDK. In my way of thinking two non-proofs don't add up to make a proof. Whether one is "informed" or not. And in some manner those casts and prints are going to convince those "informed" individuals? We,,. I"M about as informed as they come and still a skeptic. I must be doing something wrong......Prolly 'cause I took the Red Pill.....YA THINK? Hello dmaker, Hey I've been arguing that a BF's daytime eyesight isn't all that good. What's your take on that? ....J/K That is a good example, hiflier. Supposition is rampant within bigfootery. There is nothing wrong with being curious about a new thought or possibility. That is how hypotheses are formed, after all. The problem with this subject is that you have no means to test your hypothesis using the scientific method. How true that is, my friend. It is absolutely and entirely an hypothesis as is Sasquatch itself (since there's no proof- see above) So for the sake of discussion I borrowed from science and interpolated the data for the Sasquatch subject. That data is scientific based on real-world animals that science knows of, has studied, and rigorously tested in peer review situations. All I did was hypothise that Sasquatch is a normal animal and so if it is then the scientific data SHOULD be a good fit. All I was trying to do was overlay known science onto a hypothesized physical animal. It was a fun exercise.........for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted February 4, 2016 Yuchi, thats a chance I'm willing to take. Because I'm convinced its not a member of the genus Homo. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary such as evidence of butchering game with stone tools or cooking their meat on a fire? Regardless we will be cutting new ground and after its discovery I would be at the forefront of pushing legislation through to get the species protected. But I think its imperative to prove the species real at any cost first. Problem (for you) is the absence of evidence they are not of the genus Homo. Of well, I'm sure your family will be there at the greybar hotel on every visitation Sunday. Can you show me where legal rights where given to a creature outside of our own species in US law? Homo Sapien Sapien? And can you please answer my question in the kill club thread? I hate mucking up every BFF thread with our own vendetta for each other. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts