Guest DWA Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) ...The real foot print scientists and their methods of analyzing foot casts were shown on the video. Being prejudice in regards to good foot print science shown on you tube means that you may not be able to objectively absorb foot print knowledge by truly qualified experts. It will be a waste of my time and others to discuss this unless we can stay on topic. We are not talking about the Snow Walker video with obscured snow prints but detailed foot print casts taken from hard to fake trackways. Some casts are fakes and some are real. True experts can tell the difference. Sure peer review papers are needed in a perfect world, but we need to work with what we have. Are you qualified to write a peer review paper on footprints? The people that don't know what's up here continue to bring up stuff that either was nailed as flat wrong decades ago, or the serious proponents were never interested in in the first place. They can't address the serious science because (1) they don't know how science works and (2) it would show them, quickly, how badly they have been wasting their time. Just sayin'. They aren't really qualified to do anything but continue saying the same wrong things they said their first day here. (And to fail to acknowledge that true scientists are *never* fooled...but they are, as they were by that, all the time.) Edited February 8, 2016 by DWA
SWWASAS Posted February 8, 2016 BFF Patron Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) ShadowBorn: "when all leads or sides have reached a single impact." Congruence? SWWSP: "your mother is as ugly as Patty." Patty's not ugly -- eye of the beholder. Well I was just trying to be obnoxious like a football player and did not mean to disparage Patty. I was surprised that someone did not remind me that Patty is really a man in a suit and that is why she looks like she does. .Reminds me of a claim by someone in California that a female BF got a crush on him. Sounds dangerous if the boyfriend was around. Edited February 8, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
georgerm Posted February 10, 2016 Author Posted February 10, 2016 I dont have a lot of faith in DNA versus a body. Small samples can be destroyed in one test. Which means that other labs cannot verify your work with tests of their own. Samples get contaminated or lost as well. DNA will absolutely do it if we can get through the hoops and loops. But a body bypasses all that. But if DNA is all you have???? Its light years ahead of a plaster cast or grainy photo. For the reasons you state in your first line: plaster casts or grainy photos are, if I am a scientist in a relevant field, far better than a DNA sample. For the latter I'll say: where's your type specimen? Don't have one? Contamination is my clear dismissal. I have to explain casts and photos. Experts have virtually verified that the provenance of Patty and many tracks is an unlisted species. The problem is that the society isn't holding science's feet to the fire for that alternative explanation...that they do not have. That evidence leaves clear markers that rule out a human as the subject, and make fakery such a farfetched explanation that it isn't one. DWA, Southern, and Norse can you expand your comments to improve clarity?
JDL Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 Things that are expanded to improve clarity sometimes become thin. 1
norseman Posted February 10, 2016 Admin Posted February 10, 2016 I'd rather have a body than a DNA sample to prove the existence of this creature. But a DNA sample is in solid second place versus track casts and photos or video.
Guest DWA Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 A DNA sample requires an accepted type specimen. Otherwise a scientist will have ample reason to shoot it down. "Contamination," easy dissmissal. If you don't have the thing that sample came from, you don't have something that can convince me. Now if a scientist is moved by a DNA result to toss his hat in the ring as a proponent, cool. But none seem to be doing that.
SWWASAS Posted February 10, 2016 BFF Patron Posted February 10, 2016 I'd rather have a body than a DNA sample to prove the existence of this creature. But a DNA sample is in solid second place versus track casts and photos or video. If you have a body you have a typed DNA sample too and the skeptics will have to turn to trying to disprove ghosts and fairies.
norseman Posted February 10, 2016 Admin Posted February 10, 2016 If I have a body? I have a type specimen for morphology plus millions of DNA samples, its in the bag at that point. 1
dmaker Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 I'd rather have a body than a DNA sample to prove the existence of this creature. But a DNA sample is in solid second place versus track casts and photos or video. Plussed.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 If you have a body you get the faked lunar landing and flat earth crowd, it never ends.
georgerm Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 Hopefully someone like Norse will find a BF that died of old age so he won't be strapped with legal hassles. This is the easy part, then what do you do with it? After this sensation, how will BF be impacted? How will management of the national forest change? Here is my wife and I floating the Rogue River below Grants Pass Oregon. No BFs were seen but we looked for them and suppose they were sleeping in their beds. 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 I think you will have a discovery fairly soon or you will never have one. If they do there will be a push to put some in Zoos, some one will try and bag one for a trophy on the wall. Billionaires will vie to have one in their secret dungeon they can impress the other billionaires with. National Geographic and Time will have a cover. The end will come. Geneticists and Anthropologists will have a field day. Dr. Meldrum will be man of the year. Nothing will have changed. The world goes on. Life 101 And then something large and dark stirs in the forest, a man turns around, and...
xspider1 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 That looks like a good trip, georgerm. What type of boat is that? I've never seen one of those. 8 )
BigTreeWalker Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) That does look like a fun float down the river. That's a drift boat xspider1. You see a lot of them on the salmon and steelhead rivers of the PNW. Although I don't know if I've seen one with a motor on it. Usually it's just oars. Cryptic Megafauna, that's a nice story but what will change after discovery that would make all that possible? Nothing will be any different than now when it comes to finding them. Edited February 12, 2016 by BigTreeWalker
georgerm Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) That looks like a good trip, georgerm. What type of boat is that? I've never seen one of those. 8 ) Big Tree's correct. Here in the PNW, we use the 'drift boat' to float rivers with lots of rapids up to a point when it can become dangerous. I usually look for BF tracks along the way. There are many BF reports from up and down the Rogue River. Back to stalled BF science. This is the easy part is finding a dead bigfoot along a road, then what do you do with it? After this discovery, how will BF be impacted? How will management of forest logging change? How will bigfoot be affected? Edited February 12, 2016 by georgerm
Recommended Posts