Skeptics

[Guest]

LMAO

BCcryptid said:

Keep your tone civil, do not refer to those who accept the existence as 'footers', do not infer they are deranged. Keep your mind open to the possibility they are real, if you wish those of us here to keep our mind open to the possibility they are not.

and then....

BCcryptid said:

If you come here to troll and pick a fight and show off to your fellow skeptic buddies, please do us a favour go crawl under a rock somewhere. You are not wanted and you should have been banned, so quit playing on borrowed time and do us the favour.

Sorry to derail but the irony is amusing.

[Guest]

But Redwolf, that was after BCcryptid was made a moderator...oh wait, nevermind

[Guest]

Are there any documented black bears west of say Oklahoma City metro area in the prairie land from your colleagues? This might be comparative data for sas distribution.

Dunno, I'd have to do some lit review to check on that. I suppose you could call the state wildlife department for the most updated information. As far as I know, the farthest west bears go in that part of the world are the mountains in eastern Oklahoma (Ouachitas) with some recent dispersal along the rivers and creeks west to the east side of the OKC metro. (That latter location is actually one I learned about on the old BFF.)

Of course, bears pick up again as you head west, but not until you hit the mesa country on the western edge of the shortgrass prairie. I'd be surprised - though not shocked - if there were some recent records west of OKC, given the increase in black bears all over their range.

[Huntster]

Very good post, Colossus.

I don't believe the goal line is getting moved at all..........

......A DNA sequence identified as unknown Primate still doesn't prove Yeti.

Doesn't a DNA sequence identified as unknown primate prove.............an unknown primate?

Hello? <knock, knock>

Where are those goal posts?

How does Yeti DNA prove Sasquatch in North America?

I see. The goal posts are somewhere in the Pacific Ocean between North America and Asia. Never mind the unknown primate.

[Huntster]

Moving the goal posts? It's more like "not in field goal range."

We might be if the goal posts were planted.

[Guest Sonny]

Doesn't matter what anyone says, we need a body, dead or alive.

Somebody get busy and make up some reward posters.

(And that's just a joke, you no-kill folks.)

[Guest]

Doesn't a DNA sequence identified as unknown primate prove.............an unknown primate?

Unknown doesn't mean unclassified

Hello? <knock, knock>

**** Girlscouts

Where are those goal posts?

Right where we left them.

[Guest NWSquatcher]

Which brings us back to the point of the thread. I am trying to encourage more critical thinking and getting to a point where the sasquatch subject is handled more in the vein of mainstream science.

I appreciate your well written and well spoken posts. Thank you.

[Guest]

Thank you, NW. I feel like the thread might be drifting a bit off course.

[Drew]

Doesn't a DNA sequence identified as unknown primate prove.............an unknown primate?

Scenario: DNA sequence reveals enough information to label it primate, but does not reveal enough information to ID which species it is.

Result: Unkwown primate

Example:

DNA from spider monkey poop, that someone picked up and sent to a lab, might come back as the DNA of a primate, but the DNA is too degraded to make a species distinction.

You might say, 'well the sample I sent was found in the Rocky Mountains, so unknown primate means it is Bigfoot'

The lab does not get involved in the details of the collection of the sample, they are strictly determining the contents of the sample.

Someone commenting on your claim that it must be bigfoot, could say, 'unknown primate could include humans, or it could include a baggy of spider monkey crap that someone dumped out in the woods, so they could later say it is Bigfoot crap'.

[Guest]

Like the Kobiashi Maru senario?

BTW, I think the term "unknown" doesn't mean "unclassified"

Go back and look at the statements by the examiners: they say that they compared the various samples sumbmitted and that they matched NO sample on record, not man, not gorilla, chimp, monkey, etc.

If it matches no classified animal, it MUST therefore come from and UNclassified animal.

That's simple logic.

And I continue to be darkly amused at the insistence that nothing is "science" until some biased journal controlled by the academic establishment is invoked to "legitimize" it.

[Guest parnassus]

Go back and look at the statements by the examiners: they say that they compared the various samples sumbmitted and that they matched NO sample on record, not man, not gorilla, chimp, monkey, etc.

Mulder, I've looked for statements several times and I can't find any that match what you say. Don't waste time on the Snelgrove Lake sample, Nelson denies he ever said it, blames it on the narrator. These folks who make claims on MonsterQuest type shows always blame the narrator or the editor when, as it always does, their claims later turn out to be unsubstantiated. And then there's yet another show, the same "expert" shows up, with some other search story or claim, and never bothers to say, "you know, that Snelgrove Lake thing, the DNA,(for example) that was just wrong. Sorry if we misled you."

Edited September 21, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest BCCryptid]

LMAO

and then....

Sorry to derail but the irony is amusing.

Please take no offense, red wolf!

Unless your a skeptic troll, here to pick fights and cause dissention.

Then by all means, every letter was meant for you.

[Guest rockinkt]

Please take no offense, red wolf!

Unless your a skeptic troll, here to pick fights and cause dissention.

Then by all means, every letter was meant for you.

Even those letters used in your error?

It's you are or you're - not your.

Or are you a grammar troll?

[Guest UPs]

I don't think it matters if he's "qualified" or not so much as whether or not he brings up good questions.

Oh, and not to be a jerk, but our personal definitions of skeptic don't fit here. When I started this thread I had the Webster's definition in mind. What Bill said nails it on the head. If "skeptic" is a bad word to you then maybe you should substitute it with being objective.

I should have used the term pseudo skeptic instead of skeptic. RRS, thanks for the reply earlier in the thread. When you consider the possible fallout from scientific discovery of bf, it is no wonder many in mainstream science keep silent on this subject. UPs