Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I hope that cat is ok. Wait who's floyd mayweather!? undefeated Welterweight champion you thought Hatton would beat mayweather....Obviously you have alot of hope for the impossible. Hopefully it won't be the same this time but I believe you will be let down by the truth again. It was more extremely wishful thinking that mayweather would lose but I lost all the same.I have much greater faith in Dr.ketchum than i ever did in haddon, but only time will tell what the outcome will be of the study, anything else is just speculation on what is or is not going to happen, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Bullroar. If they were, we'd have a specimen tag in a museum with a Latin binomial that is the subject of a scientific paper describing the species we know as "bigfoot." These people recognize no such animal, and your strident assertions that we have ample evidence to prove the existence of bigfoot are unadulterated poppycock. I find it distasteful and exceedingly irresponsible of you to attempt to spread such misinformation. Argument from acceptance/popularity fallacy with a side order of "dueling authorities" fallacy. Even if I were to take your argument, as I've asked elsewhere: who are "these people". Who appointed them? Who vets their decisions? To whom are they accountable? It's my opinion that that's your opinion! But in all seriousness, I think I didn't explain it well enough. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you about whether or not the evidence for bigfoot is enough for us/science/everyone to conclude bigfoot exists -- I've read enough on here to know that would be a losing endeavor. (I would hazard to guess you've never lost an argument in your life.) All I'm saying is that I consistently see you on these boards proclaiming that skeptics offer no scientific counter evidence to the pro-bigfoot evidence, and that's simply false. There IS evidence against the existence of bigfoot. You've made it perfectly clear that you do not think this evidence is strong enough to override pro-bigfoot evidence -- that's fine, I don't even necessarily disagree with you! But there IS evidence against the existence of bigfoot. I'm just trying to point out that it's not as if "science" is sitting here saying, "We don't believe bigfoot exists because... well... just because." There are (so far (should I bold this just to be sure you see it?)) biological and zoological and ecological rationale for very smart, experienced, learned people to say, "Realistically, bigfoot likely does not exist." Just as you have determined the tracks, casts, sightings, etc override any other evidence, it should not surprise you that others choose to weigh the evidence differently. Please cite the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers on "evidence against bigfoot". Not holding my breath waiting... Heck, we can do that now. But the problem there is that ordinary people would have to learn things about tracking, natural camouflage and other techniques for evasion. On other forums, I found skeptics to be particularly resistant to wanting to learn about such things. On one forum I got, to paraphrase, "I don't have to learn about tracking to know a hoax when I see one", in reference to the 3-mile trackway found in Minnesota this last March. So when we have provincial attitudes like that, learning will not occur, neither will enlightenment. Well said! Edited May 4, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 No, it is the factual analysis of many highly competent scientists and analysts. Drs Meldrum, Schaller, Swindler, Fahrenbach, Kranz, Birkby, Rosen, Officer Chilcutt, Tom Moore formerly of Wyoming's Fish and Wildlife agency, and many others Argument from acceptance fallacy with a side order of wishful-thinking. Please cite the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers they have published. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I could be mistaken but I believe Fahrenbach studied hair from Janice Coy's poop barn only to determine that it was from "no known primate". It turned out to be synthetic hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Even if I were to take your argument, as I've asked elsewhere: who are "these people". Who appointed them? Who vets their decisions? To whom are they accountable? Here it is again. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The Secretariat and Commissioners are all listed there with photos and contact information. Here's what they do: "The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) acts as adviser and arbiter for the zoological community by generating and disseminating information on the correct use of the scientific names of animals. The ICZN is responsible for producing the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature - a set of rules for the naming of animals and the resolution of nomenclatural problems" Please do visit the site and, if nothing else, scroll through the FAQ section. There are some great explanations there of issues we discuss here rather frequently. (Just beware Mulder: if you follow the link, you will come in contact with facts, and the more we know you know the more your biases will be on display.) Please cite the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers on "evidence against bigfoot". Not holding my breath waiting... No need to. You will find no such species as bigfoot listed among animals described and catalogued in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This means that no such creature as bigfoot has ever been described in the scientific literature. If you would specifically like to know about published papers that analyzed putative bigfoot evidence and found it to not be from bigfoots, then it sounds to me like you're willfully trying to mislead with your statements. I've provided information on these three papers at least twice in this very thread: Milinkovitch, M C., A. Caccone, and G. Amato. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3. Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627. Coltman, D. and C. Davis 2006. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 60–61. If you're looking for peer-reviewed papers to specifically prove the negative that bigfoot doesn't exist, then I submit that I believe you know that there are no such papers. Edited May 4, 2012 by slabdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I don't know if this means anything, but Ms. Ramey posted a video of an interview with Thom Cantrell talking up the conference on Good Morning Northwest. When asked what the newest thing was, he mentioned Dr. Ketchum's study. He said, very clearly, it is IN PEER REVIEW, it has been PICKED UP BY A MAJOR SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, and that it is due to be published ANY DAY. So, those are fairly unequivocal statements. Not sure how much to read into that, but it is pretty unequivocal. I'd imagine Mr. Cantrell would know whereof he speaks in this matter. I'm really looking forward to the reports from our friends here on the forum who are going! Hmmmm. Thom seems like a really good guy, but he also claims that BF's 'mindspeak' to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I don't know if this means anything, but Ms. Ramey posted a video of an interview with Thom Cantrell talking up the conference on Good Morning Northwest. When asked what the newest thing was, he mentioned Dr. Ketchum's study. He said, very clearly, it is IN PEER REVIEW, it has been PICKED UP BY A MAJOR SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, and that it is due to be published ANY DAY. Reference: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=3546119264078 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic, but can you show the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers that verify the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers that negate the peer-reviewed, journal-published papers in a peer-reviewed, journal-published paper? Sorry, I couldn't resist Edited May 4, 2012 by FuriousGeorge 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 FG, That is exactly what we skeptics must do!!! It would clear up eveything once and for all...... I think? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 or perhaps more of the same old same old in the world of BF. If that's the case, I will have lost all confidence and interest in all of the parties involved. Their credibility is riding on this in my opinion. As it is now, the only reason I am optimistic about this is because of the parties that are involved and the evidence presented. You can't fake DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 We should probably stay on topic with the Ketchum Report on this thread. There is another thread that went into the "upside down tree" thing here: http://bigfootforums...side-down-tree/ Thanks BF, I didn't know there was a thread just about that--kewl! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 This means that no such creature as bigfoot has ever been described in the scientific literature. emphasis added2004 Meldrum, DJ. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and Sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. J. Scientific Exploration 18:67-79. If you would specifically like to know about published papers that analyzed putative bigfoot evidence and found it to not be from bigfoots, then it sounds to me like you're willfully trying to mislead with your statements. I've provided information on these three papers at least twice in this very thread: ... Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627. Sask - are you aware that the authors of this paper have said publicly that it was written to illustrate their concerns about eco niche modelling and assumptions based on it, rather than as lit regarding Sasquatch? If so, it appears that you're deliberately misrepresenting the paper to bolster your argument - you could still make your point with the other 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 This is going to be fun to watch!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 If that's the case, I will have lost all confidence and interest in all of the parties involved. Their credibility is riding on this in my opinion. As it is now, the only reason I am optimistic about this is because of the parties that are involved and the evidence presented. You can't fake DNA. That's sort of where I am with this too.problem is,even though I hope I'm wrong,its starting to have that all too familiar ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 emphasis added 2004 Meldrum, DJ. Midfoot flexibility, fossil footprints, and Sasquatch steps: New perspectives on the evolution of bipedalism. J. Scientific Exploration 18:67-79. Sask - are you aware that the authors of this paper have said publicly that it was written to illustrate their concerns about eco niche modelling and assumptions based on it, rather than as lit regarding Sasquatch? If so, it appears that you're deliberately misrepresenting the paper to bolster your argument - you could still make your point with the other 2. Meldrum also addressed it in this essay: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Are%20Other.pdf The dismissal of BF evidence based on the weakest of examples in order to discuss and dismiss eco-niche modeling is unwarranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts