Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[MIB]

How does the imaginary bear account for the unknown primate DNA and unknown primate hairs?   That DNA was about 1/10th of the way from ours towards chimp.  That. Ain't. A. Freakin'. Bear.   I don't know how to say that any more clearly.   If you want to hang onto being wrong, I can't stop you.

 

MIB 

[Guest DWA]

11 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

 

[...] 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...

 

But that's not how science works.  Science would never come to conclusions if that's how it did.  That is the very definition of Mind So Open Brains Fall Out.

 

Science proceeds on inquiry, which follows channels of evidence.  The evidence right now screams, in fairly high decibels:  HOMINID PRIMATE.

 

In science, one never once and for all tosses anything.  But one frequently sets something aside for now, 'coz nope, it just ain't looking like that.  This ain't looking like anything bear-related.  At.All.

[guyzonthropus]

Firstly, who's to say it's imaginary? You mean like BF's and yeti? You can't prove that something doesn't exist...whats that phrase? The absence of proof isn't proof of absence.....

Secondly, the bear in human form is a)not my idea, b)not my first choice of probable realities, c) not a theory I'd put my mother's farm up as wager for d)not the only option before us, e) perhaps merely a path open for consideration in search of possible insights that while may not lead one to a bear conclusion may shed light upon another aspect either yet to be examined or proving elusive from  the current perspective.

 

MIB  as for the primate DNA, we all know that bearsquatch is the most highly evolved of the swinger/partyfauna mammals  of the north American continent.

 

From my perspective it's not so much a matter of hanging  on to being wrong but rather helping others perhaps let go of such...sans overly critical statements of derision...yknow what I mean?  Maybe a little....

 

As for  nature of science...yes it is based upon inquiry, founded within the parameters of  hypothetical constructs which strive to produce models of interconetivity that enable predictability of future events/behaviours/patterns .  Channels of evidence implies boundaries constraining the potentials  of empirical observation and interpretation , which by their very nature limit the  scope of inquiry. When the hypothetical basis for one's examination of a given phenomena fails to produce viable results, it must be supplanted by others holding the possibility of graceful integration and explanation within the greater paradigmatic structure. In others words, if it don't work, fix it or move one to one that might.

 

Is it not one of the primary functions of  this forum to provide a place where people can present ideas and theories they've  arrived at to a community of folks also interested in these big furry fellas for consideration, examination, and interactive

Consideration and discussion? What I did was to pursue but one path of another's chosen interpretation, in hopes of providing a possible evolutionary model that might support his theory and thereby further his own considerations, and maybe even uncover some underlying element that may lead to insights applicable to the issues of a larger scope. So yeah...Sure.. that's really not how science progresses...honest... no really..with that approach knowledge and understanding of this or any phenomena would cease to move forward for at least half a century, or until we revert to the prior mode of investigation which has proven so demonstrably effective over the ensuing years, granting ever expanding awareness of our subject and it nature? 

Or was that too subtle?

[Guest DWA]

I think this forum would actually be a lot more fun, no it really would, if we stuck more to the evidence, which really does have a discernible pattern.

 

Not doing that does the following.

1.  It allows bigfoot skeptics to keep saying wrong stuff as if the stuff has never come up (why's Patty got breasts *and* a sagittal crest?  Huh? Huh??? HUH?????)

2.  It keeps chasing serious people doing serious science away from the topic, the key reason we do not know.  (Well, I know.  But, you know.)

3.  It leads to an unfocused proponent fringe that (see 2. above).

4.  Fails to recognize that amazing beyond totally incredible reality beats unfocused fantasy for Sheer Joy Factor, every single time.

 

I've proven this to myself over and over here.  My most fun comes talking with people who are intelligently speculating upon evidence, or open to such speculation and capable of working with it.

Edited August 26, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 8/21/2016 at 7:01 PM, TedSallis said:

Great (though occasionally sidetracked ) discussion, everyone.

 

Hifier, I can maaaaybe grant you that some of the so-called "dogmen" sightings could be bear, but what about the fact that the vast majority of up close BF sightings indicate a flat face, and rounded, not pointed, ears? Seems to me when you take away these attributes, you really are out of the "bear" game altogether. 

I've thought and argued that dog man are probably cougar sightings. cougars can look oddly dog like in the face.

They can even probably run on the hind limbs when going up over and obstacle or launching or coming out of a leaping motion.

 

Bear works, though.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[guyzonthropus]

Bear works, though

 

That's funny, cause the last bear I knew hadn't had a job for a few years and was on the government dole...you know.....he's a product of the Bearfare state and receives FoodBinStamps on a monthly basis, has subsidized housing(Section Ate) as well as cash for personal expenses.....though he does do occasional gigs as a stunt double/stand in for (none-too-)Gentle Ben and Ron Jeremy....

[hiflier]

Hi folks, back from an amazing trip to Greece. Great people, great country!

 

I see everyone has ben quite busy here, sometimes drifting off topic but that's fine. Thanks to thos that brought it back on track and esprcially Rockape who tried to do so a few pages back.

 

OK, so now I'm crazy......GOOD! That's what it takes sometimes to get out of the box and perhaps add something new to the brew. I saw where some were still having trouble in the imagination dept. when saying that I looking at Sasquatch that it doesn't conjure up anything that says bear. And I'm saying that everything it does and thinks is bear. I found this interesting: 

 

On ‎8‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 1:35 PM, MIB said:

How does the imaginary bear account for the unknown primate DNA and unknown primate hairs?   That DNA was about 1/10th of the way from ours towards chimp.  That. Ain't. A. Freakin'. Bear.

 

That's what this thread aims to discuss. My position is that the unknown primate hairs and DNA makes perfect sense for the purposes of this discussion. Gt the creature on a slab and see how much of it is bear. the unknown primate DNA may just take care of itself. The discussions on this Forum to date have settled nothing regarding just what this creature might be and how it came into being beyond speculation. The only tree we haven't barked up is the bear origin tree. NOT HYBRID mind you so the weird coupling of Human and bear is absolully a non-starter and always was AFAIC. All bear with a primate bodily form-  so, known-bear hair along with primate hair and bear DNA along with unknown primate sequences. And I'm actually kinda proud of being crazy.... 

[norseman]

Glad your back safe.

[hiflier]

Thank you Norseman. It's good to be back for many reasons. I didn't see any Minotaurs in Greece even though the Neanderthal cave paintings in France have them on the walls along with Centaurs- just as well, eh?  Hope you and everyone have been well. I saw all the typos in my last post. Man, am I outa practice! Lots to catch up on here.