Guest parnassus Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) The "bigfoot is modern human" trope has many advantages for proponents. Not only can one find proof of bigfoot on every cigarette butt and crushed paper cup, one can be sure that such evidence also exists in many if not all museums, literally right under the noses of those lazy good for nothing denialist scientists. All that is needed is an image makeover. . you thought you knew which one was the bigfoot....Not so fast... Meldrum may not be happy, but everyone else will be. Edited February 14, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I see it as an ethical matter. You don't take type specimens of humans or sentient near-humans or sentient human hybrids. What's unethical about retrieving a road-kill specimen, or one that died a natural death? As I said, no one has suggested that a bullet is the only way to bring in a squatch. Too much evidence, too many pictures, too many crazy people running through the woods banging and screaming, It will only get worse for Bigfoot if somebody proves they exist. This should be our main concern! Whether they truly exist or not, we've yet to have a confirmed death by a hunter or anyone else for that matter. If a specimen were to turn up and be subsequently identified/classified as a distinct species, I suspect in no time at all they'd be protected through legislation. In the meantime they really don't seem to need our help. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It sounds like you disagree with a type specimen being taken for emotional and not scientific reasons. RayG Ray, did I mistake your meaning of the word "taken" ? If I found a dead one or bones , I would certainly turn those in for study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yes, I should have used the word 'provided' to include all possibilities. Personally, I wouldn't pull the trigger on one, but I wouldn't hesitate to provide other evidence. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In fairness to scientists, perhaps the scene is one that is less willful malfeasance and more institutional obfuscation within some huge archive, i.e., a scene similar to the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. "We've got top men working on it." "Who?" "Top. Men." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Somehow this... I was refering to this. Perfect solution fallacy The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented. And, DNA analysis is far less reliable than a portion of a body, a portion of a body is less reliable than a whole body. Is the bar moving? What is the difference between skeptical analysis and looking for an excuse to reject evidence? Not meeting the bar of "proof" is not a logical reason to reject evidence, IMO. Became this... Is the bar moving? The only direction the bar has moved since Linnaeus is in favor of identifying new species from smaller and smaller pieces of material. The fact that we can even have a discussion about identifying a new species from its DNA signature illustrates this. I think I joined and started posting on BFF 1.0 in 2005, and I'm pretty sure that in my inaugural post I wrote something about needing a physical specimen to actually prove the existence of bigfoot and write a description of a new species. Where are you getting that I'm somehow moving the bar? I think you are cherry picking the questions you want to address. All this time and we still can't clear up the difference between evidence and proof. The bar for evidence should not be the same as the bar for classification/ proof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I feel like this thread has turned in to the PGF of the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'm really hoping that when the report comes out, we start a nice clean new thread discussing the actual results and the Erickson documentary........and that this thread disappears quickly into history. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The bar IS set at different heights for evidence vs classification/proof, and I don't see where Sas is arguing otherwise. Evidence would be tossed pine cones, stick structures, audio, footprint-sized impressions in the ground, scat, hairs, sightings, and all those things attributed to bigfoot. Proof would be the genetic blueprint obtained from DNA, an actual finger/hand/foot/ear/head/(insert body part), or a fully intact squatch attached to the grill of a log-hauling semi. The bar gets raised when someone tries to present evidence as proof. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 And proof is defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact. So technically, if you dismiss each piece of evidence or exclude it, you can't see the cogency. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The bar gets raised when someone tries to present evidence as proof. RayG Actually the very minute we have a physical specimen most of what was previously classified as evidence will swiftly be included as proof. The fine line you draw, which I agree with, will flop to the proof side, thereby VALIDATING what's collected as evidence now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 14, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I'm really hoping that when the report comes out, we start a nice clean new thread discussing the actual results and the Erickson documentary........and that this thread disappears quickly into history. Mike Now Mike, really, you think all those earlier "jumpers in" that staked their positions and verified their clinical acumen (over an old copyright) are going to suddenly zip it if produced with the "silver platter" results that closely resembles something or anything that they may have posted. Thought you'd been around here long enough to pick up on how that would be a profoundly naive assumption (but then again perhaps we'll see them in a mild form). But yes, try as 'we' might...... a nice new thread for searching purposes and providing all that discussion of proof in one tidy box would be a Godsend event. Have you ever tried herding cats before by the way? Edited February 14, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I think you are cherry picking the questions you want to address. I can only respond to questions clearly asked. If I've provided an answer to a question you didn't ask, please look first at the clarity of your expression before accusing me of intentionally clouding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Too much evidence, too many pictures, too many crazy people running through the woods banging and screaming, It will only get worse for Bigfoot if somebody proves they exist. This should be our main concern! Enjoy their secrecy, walk quietly, and LEAVE THEM ALONE! Doesn't anyone here care about them? Lighten up, Francis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest craichead Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I'd like to start a new thread related to this topic, but unfortunately don't have privileges yet. Maybe the mods can decide to move it if they want. I'm interested in the comment that was made by Dr Ketchum that said something like "Bigfoot threw us a curve ball." Anybody have any insight as to what that might mean? I'm speculating that it means the eastern and western samples somehow comprise slightly different species -- maybe similar to the way coyotes and wolves are separate species but still able to interbreed and such. Please excuse me if this topic has already been resolved somewhere in these 78 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts