Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What if its a really,really old hoax Mike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 JDL. Yes there has been thousands of reports of bigfoot. you also referenced physical evidence. Please point to me the physical evidence that proves the existence of bigfoot. The only evidence that I can think of footprints which is the best evidence we have in my opinion. Now if you have a real good footprint, beyond human size with some anatomical differences plus dermal ridges and throw in DNA analysis of some tissue from the footprint and you are on the right track. Right now we are not there. Over the years there have been multiple hair and scat samples that have tested as being from an unknown primate. Straight line logic. Hair and scat samples from an unknown primate exist, therefore an unknown primate exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 What, like, say two and a half million years old? Some proto-humam thought it might be a good idea to carve a couple of feet out of wood, using a sharpened flint, and, before anyone had thought of shoes, attach it to his feet and create a trackway with the aim of fooling.........erm...............well, someone, that something existed that they didn't think existed so that........... No, if they could ever be suspected of being hoaxed, it would have to be a modern carving/ engraving process, and I doubt that would get past first base in terms of scientific scrutiny. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) I suppose based on this statement from you, we will never again hear you decry the lack of scientific investment in bigfoot, because Meldrum is on the scene, or you'll never again brag about Medlrum as a "credentialed" scientist, because everybody knows that science ignores bigfoot. Nice try...actually not a nice try...not even a decent try. When institutional science stops with the Denialism and actively and objectively evaluates the evidence in conjunction with the proponent scientists I will then and ONLY then allow that they have properly engaged in the subject. Pray tell, what sort of evidence would you consider to prove Meldrum's ideas about bigfoot to be incorrect? At a bare minimum the same sort of evidence as that adduced by Meldrum, et al. Not bald-faced dismissals, theories about hoaxing and tossed out terms like "misidentification." Using Meldrum's morphology paper as an example. Any attempt at a counter-argument must evaluate the same body of evidence using the same methodology applied impartially and objectively. The resulting findings should then survive rebuttal and reargumentation by the proponent side. Would you mind being specific about which "Skeptics" you mean? Meaning that group of openly hostile deniers of BF evidence, as opposed to truly skeptical (note the small s as a distinction) but open minded people who simply have questions. I agree that DNA comes from living things Point to you, then. , yet you paint all of us with the same broad brush. Since it has been my experience that you exhibit most of the traits of the Skeptical mindset, as opposed to a skeptical mindset. (And for the love of Pete, would you please stop capitalizing the word "skeptic" or at least offer some grammatical explanation as to why you are?) I'll explain it again a different way: skeptic: "I have doubts, so let's look at the evidence with an open mind and see where it leads us as to the most likely explanation/" (in other words, a reasonable man) Skeptic: "There is no bigfoot Every proffered piece of BF evidence is the result of fraud or misidentification. Those scientists who have favorably commented on BF evidence are 'believers' whose professional opinions are therefore worthless on the subject. It is laughable that anyone gives them any creedence whatsoever...[and the rant goes on]" Are you suggesting that Mulder is using the term "human" only informally and is simply being misunderstood on this issue by others? Actually, it's the other way around. "Human" is used formally for Hss, and INformally for any genus Homo. I only use Human in it's strict definition. If it isn't Hss, it's not human, potential interbredability notwithstanding. No body no Bigfoot! Thene whence came the DNA, Cervelo? Are you suggesting the samples came via "spontaneous generation"? We have dna from an unknown speciman -- we have no known matches. it is human --- unmatched human dna is bf Hardly...that is the claim from the Paulides/Lindsay/Stubstrad camp, which there is no evidence linking that claim to Ketchum. Edited February 13, 2012 by grayjay to remove previously edited content, GG5, GJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Steven Streufert posted the following on Lindsay's blog today. Much of this “confirms.†There are other DNA testing efforts now being done, outside of the Ketchum one. The shocking news may be comparative, and contradictory. He seems to be referring to Lindsay's source claiming a shocking revelation by the end of the month. Wouldn't that be ironic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Mulder, I have no idea where the DNA came from do you? Let me clarify my position for you since you seem to be struggling with it. I will keep it simple 1) animal gets reported 2) someone goes looking for animal 3) animal is found 4) new species discovered Happens all the time very simple really DNA of an unknown animal without the body or significant part of the body is not going to be accepted as existence of Bigfoot by the majority of the world. Enough for you super! But for most people, their going to want to see one, I know that's hard for you and others to accept but that's most likley how this plays out. DNAs great for proving evidence of known sub-species, but for Bigfoot ain't gonna cut it IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 12, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 12, 2012 Yes, remember Mike Rugg's tooth. He said he WAS having it analyzed and not by Ketchum last I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Unfortunately, you can not read the study because one has never been published. My understanding comes from 2nd and 3rd hand information that I have obtained on this forum. I was referring to the "bigfoot is a modern human" conclusion that is rumored. I was making a point of how meaningless such a conclusion based on a dna analysis of samples from unknown origins. Just like a crime scene. You go with 2nd and 3rd hand information. I'll go with Ketchum's statements. She has said the science is solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) When institutional science stops with the Denialism and actively and objectively evaluates the evidence in conjunction with the proponent scientists I will then and ONLY then allow that they have properly engaged in the subject. Is "Denialism" puposefully capitalized here? Using Meldrum's morphology paper as an example. Any attempt at a counter-argument must evaluate the same body of evidence using the same methodology applied impartially and objectively. The resulting findings should then survive rebuttal and reargumentation by the proponent side. So if another physical anthropologist analyzed Meldrum's dataset and concluded that it represented a collection of hoaxed prints, you'd be respectful of that conclusion? What if five anthropologists did the same thing and all concluded that the data was evidence of nothing more than hoaxed prints. Would you be prepared to consider that Meldrum might be wrong? skeptic: "I have doubts, so let's look at the evidence with an open mind and see where it leads us as to the most likely explanation/" (in other words, a reasonable man) Skeptic: "There is no bigfoot Every proffered piece of BF evidence is the result of fraud or misidentification. Those scientists who have favorably commented on BF evidence are 'believers' whose professional opinions are therefore worthless on the subject. It is laughable that anyone gives them any creedence whatsoever...[and the rant goes on]" Why do you think you get to define words yourself? From Dictionary.com: skeptic - "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." According to the actual definition of the word, me and all my evil buddies , are just plain old, lowercase skeptics. Edited February 13, 2012 by grayjay GG5, removed deleted material fro quote as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I fully expect that institutional science will fight her tooth and nail every step of the way. While I fully expect that institutional science will fully expect her to have all her i's dotted and t's crossed, that her conclusions are based on solid research, and that her work can be fully replicated. Like it or not, that's just how it works. The proponents have ponied up plenty: eyewitness testimony, hairs, tracks, vocals, etc. None of which has led to an actual squatch. What have Skeptics ponied up? Theories, bald-faced assertions with no support, double-standards, moving goalposts and general snarkery. What is it you expect skeptics to pony up? Bigfoot? Proponents are making claims of bigfoot, and after 40+ years of no delivery, I've become skeptical of those claims. If someone presents a bigfoot I assure you my skepticism will evaporate. In the meantime, someone waving hair around, or pointing to an impression in the ground, or playing an audio clip and claiming because it can't be readily identified it's likely proof of bigfoot, isn't very convincing. I think that answer is obvious to any open-minded, thinking individual. How do comments like that further the discussion? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 is the report coming out in 2012? do we at least know that much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Bipedal Ape: yeah, real soon now. Just like cold fusion, room temperature super conductors, flying cars, cheap access to space, a virus proof operating system and software that never crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 thought as much:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 13, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) ...According to the actual definition of the word, me and all my evil buddies , are just plain old, lowercase skeptics. When the shoe fits................................................ Edited February 13, 2012 by grayjay Removed portion of quote found previously in violation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So, shall I put you down for "No, a bigfoot will never be collected"? No, but a sober assessment would place the probability significantly lower than the other species you mention due to the ethical and potential legal factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts