SweatyYeti Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 9 hours ago, Rockape said: I do believe I said no one has been able to replicate the PGF? Did I just imagine I typed that and see it on my screen or is it actually there? My response was to the statement you made before that...."It's really not (testable) because at the end of the day it could still simply be a well made suit." Your statement implies, or sounds like you are saying, that replicating what is seen in the PGF would be a simple matter.....when, in reality.....it would be a very complex matter.....if it could be done at all. There are many realistic details visible on Patty which have never been seen on a suit. Hence, replicating all of them via a suit would be a complex matter of design work. And, in fact, would not even be possible to do.
ShadowBorn Posted June 14, 2018 Moderator Posted June 14, 2018 You do know if the PGF was so easy and even if it was complicated we would be seeing a man in a suit . right Now ! Like in the now. Right ! There would be an exact video of Patty some where out on the internet where we would all be saying " hey wait is that not an exact copy of her on that you tube channel or video clip " So sweaty Yeti statement is true and most likely has been tested but has been unable to be replicated and people have stopped trying to replicate that creature that has been seen on the PGF. Again this is just my opinion or assumption .
hiflier Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 So, question time? Sure. Why not. If there was a specific detail regarding Sasquatch that needed some kind of true expert opinion, not something general like how would someone make that 'suit', or how do those tracks get made, what would it be. People think differently and so there may be different small things that catch someone's eye or thoughts that only someone well versed in a specific field might be able to address. Remember it should be something that doesn't bring up the subject of Sasquatch. For instance: You were walking deep in the woods somewhere and a stick all of a sudden hit you in the leg that came from the side and not from above. How would one relate that in an email? What specific field of scientific discipline might one target to present the experience to. How would one phrase the situation and the specific question that brought you to a particular credentialed person in a certain department at say, a university? Could one do it without actually saying, or even hinting, "I think it was a Bigfoot"? How scientific sounding could such a correspondence be drafted? Not saying that would be a good subject to present to a scientist but then it may depend on the circumstances under which one got hit by the stick. Stay with the facts and do not get caught up in embellishing the story. Keep it simple and focused. A short email describing an incident or some other detail is better than a long drawn out dissertation of why one was in the woods in the first place. "I was walking , jogging, bicycling, camping, hiking, picking berries, and whatever is fine of course but keep it short. These people are busy and so the shortest, driest, relating of something followed buy the question that one could not find an answer to anywhere else is all that a first email should contain. Just some ideas if anyone wants to get involved in this process. If not ,hey, that is OK, too. In truth there really isn't a lot to run with but who knows, there maybe something to at least hash over here should anyone have any thoughts on a specific matter.
ioyza Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 hour ago, hiflier said: Remember it should be something that doesn't bring up the subject of Sasquatch. That's the big catch right there. How do you ask their opinion, for example, about consistent morphology of tracks that manifests in different ways within a trackway, as Meldrum has demonstrated, without there being an obvious reference to bigfoot? How do you show them footprints at all? And after all, what's this really about: getting expert opinions about specific details for yourself, or confronting scientists with the subject of sasquatch? My opinion on a question that might not immediately suggest sasquatch: stick structures. How do you explain the prolific construction of structures across the North American wilderness, often built from entire trees (don't waste time with little ones in areas of frequent human use), often defying human capabilities without the use of heavy machinery, in places inaccessible to heavy machinery? Things like three 60 ft tall pines woven horizontally through standing trees, in wide arches running parallel to one another, that sort of thing. Just gather up a "best of" from Colorado Bigfoot's Youtube channel honestly. But that's not a question for zoologists or anthropologists; is there such a thing as an 'arborologist'? Maybe just ask a botanist if trees ever grow like that. Anything anecdotal, they're not going to be shy about shrugging and saying 'I don't know' - and then you're stuck suggesting bigfoot.
WSA Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 As fascinating as the tree structures are...and I spend a lot of time looking at them and considering their origins...I'm not sure these lend themselves to objective analysis. Moreover they are particularly hoax-able (not that I believe they are, based on the totality of the evidence) and easily dismissed by anyone who might only want a reason to avoid the question. Footprints, hair, sound recordings, DNA are probably the best non-falsifiable bits to consider. (And yes, though some wave their hands at them, there are many trackways that qualify) 1
hiflier Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) Excellent comments, ioyza. Now you can understand why it has taken me so long to get up to speed for this. Your questions were MY questions and I wrote the last post to get people thinking about this issue. I think an arborist is a good place to start but if there is a way to scale down the gelleral category of 'arborist' then there will be, or should be, less room for an ambiguous response. And BTW an "I don't know" coming from a professional is pretty acceptable depending on the subject being discussed. A lot of this research work in the field needs to be done by us. For example, as complete of an assessment of a stick structure as possible in the field is absolutely essential, documentation is crucial. For one thing it shows due diligence. For another ruling out Human activity is the top priority. Whatever that stick structure is has to be a manufactured artifact but at the same time show that it is far outside what a Human might construct. Like you say, large trees horizontal but at a height that makes them remarkable. Personally? If I was a scientist/arborist or a forest forensics expert (yes, there IS such a thing!) I probably would discount teepee structures. Interweaving, obvious heavy wood lodged in such a way that treefall or Human activity can be ruled out (unless extreme methods could be used) would be good candidates of some with credentials. People like mysteries and experts actually appreciate being able to apply their knowledge and experience to a public inquiry as long as it is kept away from the paranormal. Hard to do sometimes I know but it can be done. 15 minutes ago, WSA said: Footprints, hair, sound recordings, DNA are probably the best non-falsifiable bits to consider. (And yes, though some wave their hands at them, there are many trackways that qualify) There is nearly always at least some wiggle room in most of those subjects. But then there awe also one two examples in each category that could be good candidates. Then the only trick is to research the scientific field that best suits the question and then research a sub-field specialty that more specifically targets the question. There is a fringe benefit to all of this: I just feels GOOD to be actively involved in the process of getting answers. What wasn't clear was just how to think about the process in order to move ahead with it. Am I doing this Perfectly? Hope so, but maybe I am not doing things correctly every time. I do know a couple of people have gotten back to me so it is encouraging. Edited June 14, 2018 by hiflier
dmaker Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 19 minutes ago, WSA said: DNA are probably the best non-falsifiable How is DNA non falsifiable? It is the absolute best example of falsifiable evidence on which to base a claim. Example: This tissue came from an unclassified hominid. Test it. Result = bear. Claim is falsified. How is that not falsifiable?
SWWASAS Posted June 14, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) That is rediculus. People find hair, scat or something they think might be from BF and have BF DNA. . Sometimes even after a sighting in the immediate area or in a footprint find. it is tested and they turns out to be bear. That is not only not surprising because the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals. It does not mean that the finder falsified anything. They were hoping they found the real thing. That is like saying that because Edison tested over 1000 materials for his light bulb filament the failed tests were all falsified. You can only come to this conclusion if you think everyone is into hoaxing. Edited June 14, 2018 by SWWASAS
Rockape Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 8 hours ago, SweatyYeti said: My response was to the statement you made before that...."It's really not (testable) because at the end of the day it could still simply be a well made suit." Your statement implies, or sounds like you are saying, that replicating what is seen in the PGF would be a simple matter.....when, in reality.....it would be a very complex matter.....if it could be done at all. There are many realistic details visible on Patty which have never been seen on a suit. Hence, replicating all of them via a suit would be a complex matter of design work. And, in fact, would not even be possible to do. I'll accept my post was poorly worded but that was not what I meant. "Simply" doesn't describe the suit. "Well made" would describe the suit. I was merely saying it is still possible Roger actually made a suit that was better than anything Hollywood could at the time. Not likely, but possible. I've said many times here over the years I cannot say whether the PGF depicts a real creature or someone in a suit. However, that Roger could create something even the best Hollywood FX teams would have a hard time duplicating is one reason I have always kept an open mind.
dmaker Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: That is rediculus. People find hair, scat or something they think might be from BF and have BF DNA. . Sometimes even after a sighting in the immediate area or in a footprint find. it is tested and they turns out to be bear. That is not only not surprising because the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals. It does not mean that the finder falsified anything. They were hoping they found the real thing. That is like saying that because Edison tested over 1000 materials for his light bulb filament the failed tests were all falsified. You can only come to this conclusion if you think everyone is into hoaxing. You are misunderstanding the use of the term falsify in this case. It means to prove wrong. Not to falsely identify. Didn't you say you were a scientist? Falsifiability is a requirement for any scientific claim or evidence. In order to be tested, something has to be falsifiable. A claim must be falsifiable. As in, the truth of it can be determined. A non falsifiable example would be "I saw bigfoot last night". There is no way to determine the truth of that claim. From dictionary.com to show or prove to be false; disprove:to falsify a theory. 21 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: That is like saying that because Edison tested over 1000 materials for his light bulb filament the failed tests were all falsified. That is exactly true, actually. 25 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals Really? No one seems able to produce any verifiable bigfoot hair or scat. Edited June 14, 2018 by dmaker
norseman Posted June 14, 2018 Admin Posted June 14, 2018 7 minutes ago, dmaker said: You are misunderstanding the use of the term falsify in this case. It means to prove wrong. Not to falsely identify. Didn't you say you were a scientist? Falsifiability is a requirement for any scientific claim or evidence. In order to be tested, something has to be falsifiable. A claim must be falsifiable. As in, the truth of it can be determined. A non falsifiable example would be "I saw bigfoot last night". There is no way to determine the truth of that claim. From dictionary.com to show or prove to be false; disprove:to falsify a theory. That is exactly true, actually. I took it to mean that it could not be hoaxed. As in DNA cannot be hoaxed but sightings, tracks and audio files could be. Thanks!
SWWASAS Posted June 14, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, dmaker said: How is DNA non falsifiable? It is the absolute best example of falsifiable evidence on which to base a claim. Example: This tissue came from an unclassified hominid. Test it. Result = bear. Claim is falsified. How is that not falsifiable? Wikapedia "A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is said to be falsifiable) if one can conceive an empirical observation or experiment which could refute it, that is, show it to be false. For example, the claim "all swans are white" is falsifiable since it could be refuted by observing a single swan that is not white. The concept is also known by the terms refutable and refutability. The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, in his exposition of scientific epistemology. He saw falsifiability as the criterion for demarcating the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscBFientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.[1] [2] Popper excluded refutation by logical argument because he considers consistency a prerequisite so necessary that without it it is useless to add falsification as a further condition.[3]" Claim of that specific test sample is falsified because it is bear. The false premise was that the sample was a BF. It has no bearing on other samples tested from a different origin. If a DNA sample was collected, that proposed it to be BF, and a DNA test validated the theory, the theory would be validated. Falsifiability can work both ways, not just to deny something. As a matter of fact saying that bigfoot does not exist is the junk science equivalent of saying all swans are white. It only takes a black swan or one BF to make the theory all swans are white or "BF does not exist" false. You deny that the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals? Edited June 14, 2018 by SWWASAS 1
dmaker Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: If a DNA sample was collected, that proposed it to be BF, and a DNA test validated the theory, the theory would be validated. Falsifiability can work both ways, not just to deny something. Absolutely correct. I never said otherwise. 18 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: It only takes a black swan or one BF to make the theory all swans are white or "BF does not exist" false Correct again. 18 minutes ago, SWWASAS said: You deny that the woods are full of hair and scat from all kinds of animals? Nope. It does make one wonder why nothing from bigfoot. Edited June 14, 2018 by dmaker 1
hiflier Posted June 14, 2018 Author Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) And falsifying evidence is where I went and was trying to accomplish with the tooth thing. The one response I had received verified it as Human but nothing was mentioned regarding its large size. I now have another email going out that specifically addresses the size of the tooth. I think I am finding out that too much information regarding a specimen (shall we say) runs the risk of something not getting attention. In other words, my focus on the tooth was across several things, the 130,000 year old dig in San Diego, the look and possible age of the tooth, what it might belong to, and its size. Four different things. The first three things were pretty much addressed with a lengthy scientific explanation backing up the analysis. And it was good to see someone take that kind of care in their response. But the size was never mentioned which may have been because the images didn't adequately present that as an issue. I emailed back and am waiting for a reply addressing just the size. I also did some more digging and have sent an email off to someone else that contains a query specifically speaking to the tooth's size. So what is the big deal with the size thing one may ask? Off the top the 'big deal' is that several dentists on the West Coast said pretty much the same thing that I received as an evaluation in the first correspondence- Human. But the West Coast people also went on to say that it was also a very large tooth as well. Now, here's were it gets interesting: Through my own research I learned that Humans have three molars but as we know they are not exactly the same size. From front to back they are known as first, second, and third molars. The largest is the first molar. A large sized First molar in a Human male can measure as much as 11.9mm which equates to a fraction over 7/16". The molar that I am emailing about measures 15.8mm or nearly 5/8". That is a major size increase. It was after that realization that I began to work out the best way to present my case and to whom. The rest is pretty much history......and waiting. Would anyone really look at this and end up falsifying this tooth as being Human?? That's the scientific point of the whole thing...but I think everyone knows that. If an evaluation comes back that it is just an enormously oversized Human molar then game over on the tooth. AND I do not have to mention Bigfoot in the entire process Edited June 14, 2018 by hiflier
SWWASAS Posted June 14, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 14, 2018 Well I saw one impressive pile that was likely dumped for my benefit but having read about testing scat for DNA, the problems seem higher than the likelyhood of getting anything. Probability always points to bear since their diet and size seem to be similar. You have to test the first part out, keep the sample cool to avoid fecal bacteria destroying it, interpret what was the animal that produced it and what was eaten, and pay for the privilege of testing and risk it being bear anyway. DNA maybe cannot be hoaxed but may require interpretation. That interpretation is problematic to me. Until a BF is on a lab table, multiple DNA samples taken and sent to different labs, and an accepted DNA sequence accepted, interpretation of DNA will be an issue, especially if there are similarities to human. I do not see DNA as having a lot of value until BF is accepted by science. Then familial and evolutionary questions can be investigated. 1
Recommended Posts