Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 No sane scientist thinks there are little green men on Mars. I of course wasn't suggesting "little green men" literally on Mars. I was speaking about LGM generically, then went into Mars as a specific case where there is SOME evidence of life. Personally, I find the probability of Martian bacteria to be far higher than the probability of Earthly bigfoots. I'm looking forward to the Ketchum results to see if there's any reason for me to adjust those probabilities. And I just don't understand that line of reasoning...there is FAR more evidence for BF than there is for even microbial life on Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 There's some pretty good arguments that Viking's Labeled Release experiment already discovered life on Mars. Unfortunately we won't know for sure until the next few Mars missions verify (nearly forty years and millions of dollars later). Luckily, DNA is a known quantity. There have been some good results from the latest "rover" probes that indicate biological activity on some level: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/news/marsmethane.html Note that this comes FROM NASA, not one of the controversial sites like EnterpriseMission (Hoagland's site). Here's a general overview of the state of affairs. 98% of it is hard science discussion, leaving aside the more controversial arguments such as the "Face", which gets a brief mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Mars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Thanks for the link, RW. Fascinating. As ubiquitous as life is on Earth, I tend to believe life is not uncommon throughout the universe. I hope to be the first to discover a bigfoot similar species on Mars! In all honesty, if Mars has extant life, it's microbial or at best simple cellular (algae, etc). Mars as it exists now lacks virtually all the requirements to support higher life forms (or even most lower forms). It has no geo-magnetic "shield" from dangerous cosmic radiation. It has at best limited amounts of "free" water part of the year. It has no high-order ecology of the type needed to sustain such a creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Mulder, the first paragraph of my posting was in earnest. The second, not so much. But thanks for responding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Ad hom? You have it upside down, amigo. As to a "confirmed DNA sequence" via Dr. Ketchum's study, will it literally be "game over" on the subject of BF? What if the study strongly implies BF is human or virtually human, what then? Will true believers give up on the Great American Ape. the Apes That Walk Among Us, the True Story of Apes in America? Will true believers adjust to a new apeless America? Or, will they argue that what Dr. Ketchum and company have discovered is not all that remarkable, and the REAL sasquatch is still out there waiting for confirmation? What if the Erickson Project releases videos that portray an animal that is different from Patterson's subject? Do true believers merely cite "species variation", or do they forget Green and go with Coleman and promote multiple types or species of crypto-bipeds of human/ape manifestations, each needing its own "Sierra Shooting" or good videos or DNA discovery. (Modified to add this): If Dr. Ketchum's study gives us a human or virtual human BF, what then do we make of Dr. Meldrum's carefully constructed arguments for BF ape-feet anatomy and such Meldrumesque notions as a mid-tarsal break (an odd idea anyway, given that the ape-foot mid-tarsal break is for grasping feet, not bipedalism). You see, Mulder, it is a little more complicated for an intellectually honest person; it's never just black and white. Yes, Paulides has already as much as said on his site and on Internet radio that the DNA results will be modern human. He talks like that means Bigfoot is human. I have to laugh at that. What it means is that the samples came from modern humans. Neither science nor the general population of intellectually honest people will ever believe that Bigfoot is a modern human. My opinion, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Well "probably" and "is" are two different things. I don't think Paulides speaks for everyone who sent in a sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Yes, Paulides has already as much as said on his site and on Internet radio that the DNA results will be modern human. He talks like that means Bigfoot is human. I have to laugh at that. What it means is that the samples came from modern humans. Neither science nor the general population of intellectually honest people will ever believe that Bigfoot is a modern human. My opinion, of course That's exactly how I felt. You and I differ because I am a believer, but I can't imagine how ridiculous it would sound for a self-respecting scientist to announce the shocking news that we have BF DNA samples, and it turns out that he is modern human. So does that mean there are 6.5 Billion BFs on the planet? That's like claiming the dog from down the street impregnated my cat, and supporting my claim with DNA evidence that comes back "cat". Hmmm, perhaps there is another explanation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I've always understood Paulides comments to mean human or as stated somewhere earlier "virtually" human, but not modern human. That they are a subspecies of human, if you will. His argument has always been that the ape hypothesis is wrong. Not sure that necessarily means he thinks they are modern humans. It's possible I've totally misread his comments. BTW - I still haven't figured out why people are dead set against BF being an ape. It's like I've offend the species by calling them apes. As I've stated before, I consider myself an ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Yes, Paulides has already as much as said on his site and on Internet radio that the DNA results will be modern human. He talks like that means Bigfoot is human. I have to laugh at that. What it means is that the samples came from modern humans. Neither science nor the general population of intellectually honest people will ever believe that Bigfoot is a modern human. My opinion, of course I think the DNA will speak for itself, but there will be more to the study involving morphology of the samples which I think will disprove the modern human hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Yes, Paulides has already as much as said on his site and on Internet radio that the DNA results will be modern human. He talks like that means Bigfoot is human. I have to laugh at that. What it means is that the samples came from modern humans. Neither science nor the general population of intellectually honest people will ever believe that Bigfoot is a modern human. My opinion, of course I'm not sure exactly what Paulides thinks. He is a police officer with little scientific knowledge. For instance, in his book The Hoopa Project he makes this mistake: "There are significant differences in primates. There are the great apes, huge and powerful, and the orangutans, smaller and less powerful." (p. 318). I hope all BFFers know enough to know the error Paulides is committing. He comments that "the common belief between everyday citizens and some Bigfoot researchers is that we are dealing with a hybrid of a gorilla or ape." (p. 320). Paulides says that the interviews and forensic artistic renderings of his eyewitnesses "show that Bigfoot in the Northern California and Hoopa area are much closer to a human than most tend to believe." (p. 321) Paulides believes he has an answer as to why Bigfoot appears to be human, at least in Northern California. He presents a news item from the Humboldt Standard of 10/17/58, entitled "Bigfoot May Have Run Away From CC Camp Years Ago." The article is based on an interview with a Floridian who recalled his youth at a CCC camp in the Bluff Creek area in 1933. He said he remembered "a boy six feet, 10 inches tall who within two months of his arrival at Salyer's CCC camp had attained the height of seven feet and gained 30 pounds in weight." The boy was an orphan and was made fun of by other camp youth. Being harassed, the boy "sort of lost his mind. He ran away into the forest and never came back. We saw him from time to time, as we worked on the fire trails, and it was rumored the Indians were caring for him....." (p. 322) Paulides connects this story to a possible explanation: "Nobody ever knows what happened to the boy that left the CCC camp. Could he account for the human DNA that might be in Bigfoot." (p. 323) So, at least in his "Hoopa" book, he seems to imply a human/what-is-it hybrid. Here is some "breaking news" from the Bigfootencounters site: http://www.bigfooten...son-project.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted August 13, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted August 13, 2011 Pretty good stuff. I have to agree with alot of Erickson's observations about Sasquatch. And, why do they in some cases choose certain people to reveal themselves too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 Pretty good stuff. I have to agree with alot of Erickson's observations about Sasquatch. And, why do they in some cases choose certain people to reveal themselves too? "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." --Yoda... I dunno, just screamed to be put out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 I hope to be the first to discover a bigfoot similar species on Mars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted August 13, 2011 Share Posted August 13, 2011 (edited) I understand wanting to be thorough and wanting to get everything right, but where is the race to be first? This is a big discovery, no? Usually there is one person or one group making a bf claim. Now there seems to be a few. Does anyone know who Simon Marius is? He made the same or similar findings about Jupiter's moons around the same time as or before Galileo Galilei. Galileo beat him to the punch with the paperwork and Simon Marius is now virtually a no name. Who wants to be second? Where is the urgency to be first? I don't see it. The closest thing I've seen to wanting to be first are statements that the information will be out late Nevertember or possibly early Postponeuary of next year. Where is the race? Sorry, I have the patience of an infant. ETA, KK, I clearly see fingers and a thumb in that pic. Edited August 14, 2011 by FuriousGeorge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted August 14, 2011 Share Posted August 14, 2011 The closest thing I've seen to wanting to be first are statements that the information will be out late Nevertember or possibly early Postponeuary of next year. Where is the race? Sorry, I have the patience of an infant. ETA, KK, I clearly see fingers and a thumb in that pic. pppbbbttttt!!!!... (as beer flies out my nose) Now THAT'S some funny stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts