Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[FarArcher]

3 hours ago, Rockape said:

 

Why ya' gotta be like that? I'm sorry that there are those who don't believe that have pissed you off, but people who say they have actually seen a BF have to realize those who haven't have **** good reason to be skeptical or refuse to believe. That's just the way it is. There have been too many hoaxes and fakes to accept things at face value when it comes to BF.

 

And you make the same mistake so many others do, there is a difference between a skeptic and a scofftic/denialist. Scofftics/denialists have a closed mind and will not even entertain the possibility BF exists. Skeptics, which I am myself, question things offered with an open mind. Wadding everyone who questions or doubts into the same ball as scofftics/denialists is the same thing scofftics/denialists do when they wad believers/skeptics into the same ball that believes all the wild stories about BF.

 

And yeah, there would be a few who try to continue denial even with an entire body examined by top scientists. I think there are people who still believe the earth is flat. Some people you just can't do anything with, but when it comes to established scientific fact, the naysayers voice is a fringe element and generally deemed unworthy of the time of day. A body or body part, DNA confirmed by science cannot be denied by reality. It will become scientific fact.

 

 

 

(I've gotten sideways with two posters - and it's a continual work in process - long in the process.  A gift that keeps on giving.)

 

I don't have a problem with those who don't believe in the existence of Bigfoot.  I really don't.  I do find scoffers irritating, not for their disbelief, but for their irritable manner.

 

Let me give you an example, and I hate to single this person out, but I like them and here's what they said:  MagniAesir:  ".  .  .  I do not believe that Sasquatch exists, however, scientific curiosity makes me try and explain how a sasquatch would come into being if I am wrong and they do exist.  I neither hope a sasquatch exists or does not exist, I just want to know the answer."

 

Now this gentleman is a non-believer, a skeptic, and I find not a whiff of anything objectionable whatsoever - rather - I find his skepticism admirable.

 

Rockape, you may find this odd, but I too am skeptical of many narratives.  However, when someone relates a narrative, I'm looking for a few nuggets that I'm familiar with - that lend enough weight to throw their narrative firmly down on the side of believable.  

 

Someone says, "I saw a Bigfoot."  I tend to blow that off until such moment there's a detail or two they share that I'm very familiar with - and then I tend to believe their narrative.  It's funny when I've talked to some of what I'd call - some of the low-key, but very knowing BF experiencing personalities - we share and discuss some things others will never hear or read.  They're initially trying to pick out nuggets in what I'm saying to determine if I'm FOS, and I'm picking out nuggets in what they're saying to determine if they're FOS (full of squat).  

 

Once we realize neither of us is FOS, then we can open up.  Only then.  So technically, I'm a skeptic.  Until I know without reserve, otherwise.

 

There are posters here that within their narrative, I go, "that happened, and that little detail is something everyone else will gloss over."

 

Others, just rely on generalities, habit, preconceived notions, erroneous critical thinking, demonstrate tactical ignorance, and can't for their lives discern the important details contained within a narrative, that if they'd think for a moment, may help them in their own efforts.

 

If this makes me contrary, I'll take it.

 

 

[Guest DWA]

All I ask is an ability and willingness to listen and be informed.  There aren't that many on here who consistently demonstrate either the ability or the willingness.  And if that makes me contrary well it damsight better.

 

Bigfoot skeptics say the same discredited things over and over.  There is almost nothing that a bigfoot skeptic thinks about this subject that is not demonstrably invalid.  So in my case, it's not just the manner, which tends to the insufferable, but disbelief that admits to nothing and keeps saying wrong things over and over, as if they've never been addressed.  My long list of Ignore here are people who could not have read - much less thought about - a single post I wrote; their 'responses' couldn't be clearer on that.

 

Then there's the lack of logical thought, which unfortunately afflicts both the bigfoot skeptics and the believers.  (One doesn't believe in this game; one concludes based on evidence.)  This is a fact, not an assertion:  THE SIGHTING REPORTS ARE A COMPELLING BODY OF EVIDENCE.  They are the accounts of thousands of people, describing the same characters and behaviors over and over, in the unique vocabulary of each witness, but still recognizable to any student of the hominoid primates.  Don't get this?  Then you are behind the eight-ball, and you won't find anything out about this except by the sheerest of luck.  To get here - and no one that disagrees with me has done so - one can't just read them.  I have met deniers who read each one; go to themselves, proof? or trash?  and if it's not proof (and how could it be?), they trash it.  They never consider the reports as a body; they don't sift, sort, organize and apply a lifetime's careful observation of animals, people and the wild to the evidence.  And it's no surprise that they're clearly stuck, waiting for the next Hoax? Of The Week to Instantly Debunk.  Try driving to an address I give you at random with no map. (No phone either, weisenheimer.) That's them.  They wouldn't know what evidence is or how to use it if it hit them in the face.  Too many here run, screaming loudly, in the opposite direction from the evidence.

 

(And it never occurs to them that the very basic description of the animal that they accept comes almost completely from eyewitness accounts.  Sheesh, some people.)

 

Too many here need to up their game, a lot.  This is a problem in the biological sciences.  If you don't know how to address those, you may be wasting your time here.  But there are people who could tell you how to go about this.  In fact we have.  Just go back; read...and think.

 

[wiiawiwb]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

Too many here need to up their game, a lot.  This is a problem in the biological sciences.  If you don't know how to address those, you may be wasting your time here.  But there are people who could tell you how to go about this.  In fact we have.  Just go back; read...and think.

 

 

Didn't someone say something about insufferable?

Edited August 23, 2016 by wiiawiwb

[Twist]

Wiiawiwb, meet DWA, the king of soap boxes.  He's not so bad once you learn to laugh at his posts.

 

jk I'm sure with your post count you are well aquanted with our resident super scientist.  Remember, read, read, read and when in doubt, read.  

[Rockape]

3 hours ago, FarArcher said:

Rockape, you may find this odd, but I too am skeptical of many narratives.  However, when someone relates a narrative, I'm looking for a few nuggets that I'm familiar with - that lend enough weight to throw their narrative firmly down on the side of believable.  

 

Someone says, "I saw a Bigfoot."  I tend to blow that off until such moment there's a detail or two they share that I'm very familiar with - and then I tend to believe their narrative.  It's funny when I've talked to some of what I'd call - some of the low-key, but very knowing BF experiencing personalities - we share and discuss some things others will never hear or read.  They're initially trying to pick out nuggets in what I'm saying to determine if I'm FOS, and I'm picking out nuggets in what they're saying to determine if they're FOS (full of squat).  

 

Once we realize neither of us is FOS, then we can open up.  Only then.  So technically, I'm a skeptic.  Until I know without reserve, otherwise.

 

There are posters here that within their narrative, I go, "that happened, and that little detail is something everyone else will gloss over."

 

 

OK, fair enough. And yeah, that's what a lot of us here do, we question to form an opinion. I've learned to withhold judgment on most (a few are obvious) as sometimes it takes awhile to suss out their credibility. Most who claim a sighting are just trying to figure it all out. Sharing their story here is a way to establish a base from which to move the ball forward.

 

And I think you'll find, even with those you have had "disagreement" with, that most here are very well versed in all things BF, the stories, the evidence, the science (despite what some say - I'm looking at you DWA). We're all just trying to figure it out. That ruffles some feathers sometimes, but if you stick around long enough, I think you'll find nearly everyone here has something to offer and are generally good people.

[Twist]

Hence a discussion forum.  Many people, many views, and many ideas coming together to discuss and debate.  Keep it civil and you can learn a lot, both good and bad.  

 

dis·cus·sion

dəˈskəSH(ə)n/

noun

 

1. the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.

[Guest DWA]

Too many of them let too much of the 'discussion' ricochet off their info-proof helmets.

2 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Didn't someone say something about insufferable?

Yeah, bipto did.  Familiar with him?  He's not here anymore.  He's involved with probably the most important sasquatch field operation going right now.

 

Know why he left?

 

The 'discussion.'

 

Oh yeah.  Someone said something about insufferable.

[MIB]

The thing about "discussion" is it's supposed to be two ways with active listening, not two people exchanging verbal bludgeonings.    That's lacking around here too often.   There's a lot of stuff that gets said that'd result in dental rearrangement if it was said in person.   That's not discussion.

 

MIB  

[Twist]

That's a good point MIB.  I'll try to take that observation into perspective.

[FarArcher]

Well, I finally found out who this bipto is.  Wow.

 

Well.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

When a thread gets too hot I take a vacation, by the time I come back everyone forgot all about it, mostly.

I then miss the inflammatory remark that would have set me off again and I avoid escalating in the meantime.

The problem is catching yourself before you get to the irritated stage.

 

With a cool head I can see better.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[guyzonthropus]

Not to derail the derailment of this thread, but it seems to me that what hiflier is proposing might well represent a form of convergent evolution within the lines of bears and primates, with both lines developing species displaying the bipedal, "hey! My thumbs are opposable! And my feet are remarkably similar to those other upright critters" physical format...while I don't see much likelihood of genetic crossover or probability of such convergent development in a line of bears resulting in human(or human like) genes arising in the DNA of said bears, aside from the same genetic components shared by most placental mammals already, especially to the extent that a bear sample would test out as even remotely human, I could envision the possibility that some form of long legged bear species already capable of  higher efficiency gaits than seen in most other ursines, might begin the shift to forms of bipedalism after attaining sufficient momentum to sustain the new posture, as may be seen in some lizard species such as the south American basilisks(Basiliskus) and the Australian frilled lizard(Chlamydosaurus) (pulling those genus names from a distant past, so not entirely sure of the spelling, but it's close enough that Google will know what yer asking for) Sure, those are lizards, with different A&P than seen in mammals, but the idea still may be a potential path of developing such a hypothetical bear as hiflier proposes. The running  bear, or perhaps even a branch of its forebearers(sounds like they played a lot of golf, maybe...) might serve as candidate for such an evolutionary shift.  Just a thought...trying to construct a path that might lead to Ursus hiflierensis...

Or it could have been  those dang pesky Greys again....who knows.

[david75090]

We live in a world where there is such a thing as a platypus. What's more weird than that?

 

[MIB]

Guy -

 

Oh, I know what he's saying, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.   He's a nice guy, I think, but ... being a nice guy does not validate his claims. 

 

Such unproven bears would not have 100% known bear DNA.    Black bear DNA comes from black bears.   Period.   That's all we have from North America .. 100% known bear species.    To date the unidentified DNA samples point to a primate nearer human than chimp or gorilla.  Bears are completely off the playing field not even relevant to the discussion.   Hiflier is a good guy but he does not have the foggiest idea what he's talking about when it comes to DNA, how it works, how testing works, what the results mean, nor, apparently, what the history of BF DNA testing has been to date.    So far, what he's offered is a technical sounding smokescreen of word salad.  

 

Remember when it was said that Ketchum was "not even wrong" because there was no valid connection between the inputs offered and the conclusion drawn?    Same thing here, hiflier is "not even wrong" because the dots he's trying to connect are not relevant to each other.  He's ignoring what's inconvenient and connecting what's irrelevant.  I don't know how to talk sense to him, at this point it's like trying to talk logic to a crazy person you can only talk sense to by bringing yourself into their crazy.  He doesn't seem to have enough science to understand how screwed up his notion of science is ... and it's circular and self-perpetuating.   

 

I feel sorry for him but he can't be helped until he wants help.   He doesn't want out of being wrong, he wants everyone else to join him in there.   Can't.  Won't.

 

MIB  

Edited August 25, 2016 by MIB

[guyzonthropus]

Well, yeah I hear what your saying...But maybe there's another government cover  up only this time it's hiding unknown bear species...I get the paucity of his grasp on genetics, but there's an idea in there that might prove a semi-viable path of inquiry on some level or another.

  Of course any bear with that much transformational development as a species form, rather than a single mutant Yogi, would have nothing near 100% black bear DNA, nor would it have primate markers due to its shift, unless it's a result of certain sequences within the black bear genome being activated after having been shut off  until recently. Who knows with those recessive-riddled black bears?! Just no telling.

 

But it is possible to ferret out potential pathways of development that might lead to such a convergent evolution of body forms that hiflier seems to have become fixated upon. And until we have the slab-monkey or the gov/academia goes full disclosure we of the open mind should not discard such paths of consideration simply because the box it came wasn't wrapped to our liking...just think how vindicated ms. Melba would be when it turns out BF are a lemur-bear hybrid, as then she'd at least be half right...

 

"Ohhh...there goes Chuck again! Always ranting on about his "selective factors" and his "survival of the fittest"....come Lemark(sp?) let's go watch flies spontaneously rise forth from rotting meat...."