Skeptics

[Guest Blackdog]

I really don't mean to be rude but have you read the posts in this thread? These questions have been addressed.

[Will]

I really don't mean to be rude but have you read the posts in this thread? These questions have been addressed.

Is that question for me, if it is, I guess I just don't understand the dna discussion

[Guest]

At the very least it makes it Unknown Primate hair, and if found in a place that supposedly HAS NO unknown primates, I would expect any real scientist to be all over that like a bad rash.

So would I. Perhaps some of the "real scientists" whose work you are so fond of trumping up will get off their collective duffs and publish. The only logical reason they haven't is that they don't share your opinion of their own work.

It always fascinates me how I become the poster child for everything that's wrong with science when I ask questions about such claims. Why don't you direct your ire at the people who've actually done the work we're discussing and find out why they won't publish it? (Warning: you might not like the answer they give you.)

[southernyahoo]

So would I. Perhaps some of the "real scientists" whose work you are so fond of trumping up will get off their collective duffs and publish. The only logical reason they haven't is that they don't share your opinion of their own work.

Saskeptic,

It could be that valuable data/samples are still coming in which would make any DNA study stronger or perhaps more complex, allowing for some variation in this particular species. Legit samples might indeed be hard to come by and you do need to establish a population of whatever you intend to prove exists.

[Guest RayG]

At the very least it makes it Unknown Primate hair, and if found in a place that supposedly HAS NO unknown primates, I would expect any real scientist to be all over that like a bad rash.

But in the case of the Bhutan hair, it WAS found in a place that had an unknown primate, the Macaca munzala, which is native to Arunachal Pradesh in north-eastern India, which happens to share a border with Bhutan. Well, at least it was unknown to science until 2004.

More "presumption of incompetence". If their databases are that limited, that would be a noted factor in that report. And several of the more recent finds the presenter made it abunantly clear they went the "extra mile" and checked everything they could get their hands on.

And in many cases the presenter makes it abundantly clear that the sample matches nothing in THEIR database, but doesn't indicate how many samples that would include, nor whether or not their database contains samples of ALL mammals.

And how may of those are supposed to be running around where these samples were taken?

It only takes one, like in the case of the Macaca munzala.

RayG

[Guest Lesmore]

"It always fascinates me how I become the poster child for everything that's wrong with science..."

I think the reason you are regarded as the poster child, for everything that is wrong with science on this forum...is because you are perhaps (I don't know for sure), viewed by many on this forum as the only actual scientist with credentials, that participates on the forum. You're here and you're accessible by other members, through posts.

Other scientists are not as accessible.

You are, I assume, considered by some here, as the 'unofficial' representative from the profession of scientist. I realize you didn't ask for that 'honor', but it seems to have been bestowed upon you.

BTW, I have never indicated and never will indicate, what I used to do for a living. Reason...I don't want my opinion, linked to what some people, may think of my former profession.

Suffice to say, that I was a university trained professional, who worked as an administrator over a large dept. of other professionals....for many years.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Lesmore

[Guest nycBig]

did you run a brothel?

[Guest Lesmore]

did you run a brothel?

No. Next question.

[Guest]

did you run a brothel?

[Guest Lesmore]

Saskeptic,

I wanted to add this to my most recent post, but apparently I was too late and couldn't edit that particular post anymore.

So here goes the stuff I wanted to add.

As a scientist, I feel you bring a invaluable approach and view to this forum. In many instances you are the voice of scientific reason that provides a balance to discussions.

I do believe this forum is fortunate, to have access to your knowledgeable sense of logical procedure.

You have also explained how 'science' and universities work, which I would say have made for a better understanding of how and why....things science...are done.

Les

[Will]

Sas

I'd like to know what you think of ALL the supposed evidence since say PGF.

Do you think it is all faked and/or misidentified.

[Guest]

I will admit I haven't read the entire thread, but I have wondered that myself, will. I'm open to "not bigfoot" explanations, but I can't recall that I've ever heard a skeptic lay out the arguments *for* Miss-IDs, hallucinations, genetic memories, etc. or the other explanations for tracks, audio, etc. I'm always fascinated when good old-fashioned science results in a firm answer to the mysterious sightings, sounds, etc. Like when the Chehalis sounds were found to be emanating from a coyote. To me, that's just as good.

[Guest]

It could be that valuable data/samples are still coming in which would make any DNA study stronger or perhaps more complex, allowing for some variation in this particular species. Legit samples might indeed be hard to come by and you do need to establish a population of whatever you intend to prove exists.

That's perfectly fine. I'm happy to wait for however long it takes for people who do have access to such data to fully complete their analyses to their own satisfaction before going public. In the meantime, however, it is disingenuous for any of us who are not directly involved in that analysis to spout things about that might be (at best) currently unresolved.

[indiefoot]

I will admit I haven't read the entire thread, but I have wondered that myself, will. I'm open to "not bigfoot" explanations, but I can't recall that I've ever heard a skeptic lay out the arguments *for* Miss-IDs, hallucinations, genetic memories, etc. or the other explanations for tracks, audio, etc. I'm always fascinated when good old-fashioned science results in a firm answer to the mysterious sightings, sounds, etc. Like when the Chehalis sounds were found to be emanating from a coyote. To me, that's just as good.

Was there ever any audio or video recordings of the coyote making those sounds. I would like to see or hear them if they are available.

[Guest]

BTW, I have never indicated and never will indicate, what I used to do for a living. Reason...I don't want my opinion, linked to what some people, may think of my former profession.

Suffice to say, that I was a university trained professional, who worked as an administrator over a large dept. of other professionals....for many years.

Thanks Lesmore, I appreciate your kind words. In my case, I think I outed myself as a wildlife ecologist in my first BFF post way back in 2005. I was compelled to start posting precisely because I thought I could add some perspective to discussions here - mainly to demonstrate that we "mainstream" wildlife folks really are interested in bigfoot, we're just unconvinced by the evidence offered to date.