Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence

[SWWASAS]

I don't agree totally.    Tracks are physical evidence but like you say they can be faked so are not good irrefutable evidence.     A well documented sighting in conjunction with a footprint or prints is better than an isolated footprint without a sighting along with it.    A hoaxer is unlikely to be able to make or want to make convincing tracks wearing a hot suit and being observed.         So tracks should always be looked at suspiciously because it is pretty low technology to fake very detailed ones especially if they are a single footprint.  A determined hoaxer could make even make dermal ridges in a silicon foot.    And there is for me an alarming trend that several who have a cast collections are doing,  they replicate and give away casts that are nearly as good as the original.     That means there are supposedly authentic casts that could fall into the hands of many people who could use them to hoax a sighting.   In time it will get difficult to sort out reproductions from original casts or know who has what.      A trackway is more of a challenge since every print should be slightly different with a living foot.      

 

  Skat the moment it hits the ground goes into a self destruct mode just like the tapes for Mission Impossible.    The bacteria in the scat are intent on destroying everything to feed and reproduce.     So the clock is running before the bacteria destroys all DNA evidence.    I believe Disotell says you just have a few hours to get DNA from skat and even at that most of the crapper's DNA is only at one end of it.  If I remember right that is the first out end.  Pick the wrong end and you might get nothing.       For a meat eating animal, you have  to sort out the DNA of everything it has eaten from the supplier of the skat.    Worst case would be scat from a BF that just had dinner of a human berry picker.   Talk about confusion in the lab.    Bones are good unless BF is very close to a modern human but a femur has to be significantly larger than the human norm to make you even know what you found is special and not a Native American burial.     The only thing clean and unquestionable is a body on a lab table following the great challenge of getting it there. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

Tracks are not physical evidence! They are made of DENTAL RESIN. Physical evidence is a physical part of an animal.

Again we need to be careful of terminology.

I'm not saying its not evidence, mind you. And a body would be more than evidence, it would be proof. And it would also yield years of data. All the organs, all the bone structure, the connecting muscle tissue. It would be a gold mine.

Edited April 1, 2016 by norseman

[FarArcher]

It's subjective, to be sure.

 

In a felony murder case, footprints, sneaker prints, boot prints, tire tracks, etc., have been termed physical evidence and have led to convictions.

 

But not with relict species.

[ShadowBorn]

But not with relict species.

But relict means past and these are not past but present, that are leaving evidence in remote places like prints. Norseman, How is it that we can call a deer track a deer track but yet we did not see the deer make it ?  it's the way that the track presents it self that makes it a deer track. Yet, we know that this is physical evidence that a deer was there, Yes? The same with bait piles that are placed , we find deer, elk, and turkey tracks at those piles. Is this not physical evidence of those animals at those bait piles? This is the point that I am trying to make that tracks are a part of physical evidence. Whether it may be hoaxed or not this is where it begins and not end. 

[norseman]

It's subjective, to be sure.

 

In a felony murder case, footprints, sneaker prints, boot prints, tire tracks, etc., have been termed physical evidence and have led to convictions.

 

But not with relict species.

Not with Biology.

[norseman]

But not with relict species.

But relict means past and these are not past but present, that are leaving evidence in remote places like prints. Norseman, How is it that we can call a deer track a deer track but yet we did not see the deer make it ?  it's the way that the track presents it self that makes it a deer track. Yet, we know that this is physical evidence that a deer was there, Yes? The same with bait piles that are placed , we find deer, elk, and turkey tracks at those piles. Is this not physical evidence of those animals at those bait piles? This is the point that I am trying to make that tracks are a part of physical evidence. Whether it may be hoaxed or not this is where it begins and not end.

If all we had were deer tracks? Then deer would not be a proven species. But we have a type specimen, hair, scat, blood, etc.

I keep repeating this because its physical evidence that science is after....its what is going to prove us right.

[FarArcher]

^Well the burden of proof rests on your shoulders Far Archer.  I have my Griffin in the attic but heck no I see no reason why I'll share it.  It chose me so I'm special.  I know it's habits and what it likes to eat etc etc.  Sooooo you have a mountain, a clan, and a lot of dancing why you are no different than any other habber that's come down the pike.  Now if I'm wrong and you have posted compelling evidence that is not verbosity please link it to us.  In fact I'll even post a photo of the skeptic no bigfoot proof demanded in this thread.

 

 

Ah, the skeptic.  Rather than a creature with ongoing narratives and eyewitnesses, he thinks it clever to use something where we don't have any ongoing narratives, eyewitness, nor any other indications whatsoever.  Not very creative, and the analogy is extremely poor, but the ability to be clever oddly eludes some folks.

 

Never been to that mountain, never seen the lay of the land, never seen the terrain, never seen the slope angles, never seen the approaches, never seen the location at all.  

 

Unfamiliar with the somewhat unique weather patterns there, temperatures and precipitation expectations, unaware of the noted activity passes, unaware of some very unusual characteristics and behavior patterns never mentioned in any narrative, speculation, or report anywhere, at any time.  Thusly, no idea as to the actual precursor engineering involved in advance of the actual deployment.

 

Unfamiliar with the consultations with advanced very high (military) technology companies as to methods of neutralizing those behavior patterns, unusual characteristics, and most unusual behaviors.  In fact, along these lines, doesn't know diddly squat.  Wouldn't know diddly squat if it were explained as there is no background or experience in these matters.

 

Worse, never has been exposed to the behavior of these critters, never has seen one, never has spent months sharing a mountain with them, is not familiar with their apparent habits, not familiar with their activity peak times, never had them try to get a rise out of us, never been under almost constant observation.

 

Zero idea of the significant equipment required, significant advanced support equipment, zero idea of the logistics involved, and zero awareness of the strategy (approach to the target area) and zero awareness of the tactics, (activity AT and ON the target area.)

 

Not one iota of information whatsoever.  And yet clearly states his personal assurance that it won't work, but not real clear on why.  There's a reason for his certainty.  Two, actually, and I've actually heard of this stuff.

 

Crow has psychic abilities.  And he's a fortune teller.  And then, I recall hearing about this Louisiana black water swamp witchy woman who had some kind of mojo - take her a silver dollar and a chicken, and she'd do just like Crow.  She could tell your future.  Didn't even know what the question was - she already knew the answer.

 

These mojo people are just fascinating.  They can derive certainties out of no knowledge whatsoever.  I mean, zero evidence.  Zero knowledge.  Zero awareness.  Zero access to the set of variables of immediate concern.  They can peer through the dark veil of the future, just as Crow has demonstrated, and tell you exactly what will happen at a point in the future.

 

But Crow is mighty special and generous.  He's sharing and telling my future without charging me anything.  Which is a bad habit, considering what he's shown all of us is in his empty pockets.

 

But then again, a true shaman, seer, fortune teller, and honest psychic can't charge for their services.

 

So thank you, Crow.  For sharing.  Especially your specific knowledge of the intricate details.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There's biological and non-biological evidence. Mainstream science prefers the former when it comes to potential new species because it's less open to interpretation. If hoaxing didn't exist, then evidence such as footprints and the PGF would be enough to establish a lot of important facts. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by OntarioSquatch

[SWWASAS]

I did some research and Norseman is correct in that there is a difference in physical evidence between the legal term and scientific one.    Footprints are accepted legal evidence.   Footprints are to science a trace fossil or evidence of biological activity.    I think that serves our purpose here.     We can regard footprints as evidence of biological activity be it thousands of years ago in the form of a fossil footprint or yesterday in the mud in your research area.  .   That certainly works for me in that although I know they don't prove anything, they indicate to me that something with a larger than human foot size has been active and left footprints.        I suppose a footprint cast could be considered a artificial fossil indicating biological activity?.   Scientific American:d of evidence of behavior often called a 'trace fossil' - geological evidence of biological activity. This is in contrast to 'body fossils', fossilized remains from organisms' bodies.

Scientists can learn a lot from sites where human footprints have been found, including:

• "Footprints are a kind of evidence of behavior often called a 'trace fossil' - geological evidence of biological activity. This is in contrast to 'body fossils', fossilized remains from organisms' bodies."

Scientists can learn a lot from sites where human footprints have been found, including:

• Estimates of height, weight, and gait of the humans who made the footprints - which also tells us how many people made the footprints.
• Features of the substrate that the footprints were formed in (was it soft? hard? wet? dry?).
• Aspects of the environment that the humans who made the footprints were living in, especially if there are footprints left by other animals.

Several human footprints sites have been discovered; you can explore the evidence from some of them here.

Edited April 2, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[FarArcher]

I agree Norse is correct.  

 

It's going to take a body.  Something to rub in their noses.  Something big enough they can't ignore.

 

I just think it would be helpful to have a bit of high resolution video showing these things walking, moving, and reacting to minor changes to something they are already accustomed to.  After all, a dead one can demonstrate they exist, but it would be helpful to see them in motion.

[SWWASAS]

This discussion just gave me an idea.    While a BF body fossil would be sufficient evidence to establish a new previously unknown species to science, it would provide no links  as to its existence today.   It certainly would get science looking and perhaps interested in the BF phenomena if there was a fossil record in North America.    But perhaps we don't need a body fossil at least to get science interested.     If a huge footprint fossil was found, authenticated, and dated in thousands of year old strata that would be a trace fossil and establish evidence of a trace fossil record of biological activity of a large unknown primate.     I don't think even our resident skeptics would claim that Wallace or a movie in 1967 would influence someone millennia ago to hoax footprints as is the problem with modern day footprint finds.     But we would need a authentic fossil footprint in strata that can be dated.   Fossil tracks were what really started science looking into dinosaurs.    Scientists at the time wondered what creature made such tracks and started looking for fossil bones.  A fossil footprint is probably as hard as a body fossil to find but it opens up another method to get scientific interest.  Perhaps there are some known already that are out of human size norms.  

Edited April 2, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetoli

Like this?

[ShadowBorn]

Sure we need a body how else will it get confirmed, but who is going to pull the trigger on them when the time comes?How safe will one be retrieving this so call body? if you are deep in it. By this I mean deep as in deep in the forest whare there could be more of them. Oh, the risk that one must take so that the skeptics will be pleased and that is if they will be pleased? I question their motives and would rather they do the deed then I or anyone else who feels up to the challange.

[FarArcher]

Sure we need a body how else will it get confirmed, but who is going to pull the trigger on them when the time comes?How safe will one be retrieving this so call body? if you are deep in it. By this I mean deep as in deep in the forest whare there could be more of them. Oh, the risk that one must take so that the skeptics will be pleased and that is if they will be pleased? I question their motives and would rather they do the deed then I or anyone else who feels up to the challange.

 

As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet - "therein lies the rub."

[SWWASAS]

Precisely Norseman.      The Laetoli prints were evidence of bipedalism and it was noted that no knuckle prints were found with them.      So just from the prints it was concluded the print maker was a hominin.     A similar find of BF fossil prints could start the same process.     If they matched existing BF print casts that sure would give Meldrum some ammunition with his colleagues.   It is fortunate that such fossil prints have not yet been found, because existing fossil prints would always  encourage the skeptics to claim hoax with the casts.     But since 100s of BF footprint finds and casts have preceded any such fossil find, that claim cannot be made.   The skeptics will believe that Joe Hoaxer understands the nuances of foot motion in bipedalism and can incorporate them into their hoaxes so it would be an easy claim for skeptics that someone saw a fossil footprint find of a large unknown to science biped and started hoaxing them.     That fossil has not yet been found.  

 

I would urge anyone in fossil prone areas to be on the lookout for BF fossil tracks.    If tracks of other animals are found as fossils,  then presence of BF fossil prints is possible in those areas too if BF inhabited the area too.