Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Most scientists would be extremely open to evidence showing an upright primate's existence. Then why are they close-minded when it comes to "Bigfoot". The failure is; if it existed it WOULD leave evidence And it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Open- and closed-minded are red herrings. The relevant science needed to address the potential reality of bigfoot is that sufficient to warrant the naming of a new species. Bigfoot is a binary: 1 it exists, 0 it does not. Thus, in the context of proving bigfoot, there is no amount of science that "gets us closer"; there's no "progress" in such a thing. Bigfoot is either proven with a specimen or it is not. I have been reading about and studying this phenomenon - including my years of active engagement on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 - for years. I am unconvinced that the quality of the evidence produced for bigfoot is sufficient to be consistent with an otherwise undescribed, giant, hairy hominin living wild and free in temperate North America. That makes me a bigfoot skeptic, and in the eyes of some, a bigfoot "scoftic," a "denialist," and the worst of the worst: a "S"keptic. But does that make me closed-minded? I shouldn't think so, given the amount of time and effort I've invested in learning about and seriously considering what people consider to be the best evidence. I consider myself very open-minded about bigfoot: when one is proven, I'll believe in it. When people get bent out of shape because you don't believe in something that can't be proven, then they are reacting to your lack of faith, not your lack of careful consideration of the evidence, which should be the emphasis if the process used to determine the truth is scientific. My hypothesis regarding bigfoot is falsifiable: if bigfoot is proven - whether by Ketchum, Sykes, or some dude driving a dump truck - my hypothesis ceases to be supported by the available data. That's science. I'd be cool with outcome, i.e., thrilled to have been wrong. What about you? Maybe your hypothesis is that bigfoot does exist. Is there a scenario in which data can be produced that cause you to overturn that hypothesis? If not, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable, thereby rendering it unscientific. That's okay, it just means that you're using some process other than science to develop your opinion on this topic. So, my scientific approach to bigfoot is that my "level of belief" is right now 0%. Pending additional data, I am willing to adjust my level of belief to 100% - a complete reversal of my current world view. I consider 180 degrees to be as open-minded as someone could possibly be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 As the man said: "Only Nixon could have gone to China". To get movement beyond an impasse it requires committed scientists to cross the line into investigation. It requires acceptance of and cooperation with those scientists by traditional researchers. And it requires tolerance on the part of skeptics. After all, isn't a skeptic one who doubts that something can be rather than one who insists that something cannot be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 "Someone has now put up a DNA Diagnostics, Inc. FB page. IT IS NOT MINE and I didn't have anything to do with it. Heaven knows what will happen next." http://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/455944651084323 "DNA Diagnostics Center is different and they are legit." http://www.facebook.com/melba.ketchum/posts/455944651084323?comment_id=5867693&offset=0&total_comments=15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 While I may quibble the semantics of how relevant "open mindedness" is Saskeptic (I'm a liberal arts type, and there fore more prone to fuzzy definitions in this realm) your type of skepticism, as demonstrated on this site at least, has always struck me as objective, clear and rational, and not tinged with the sort of discursiveness and ridicule I see from what I might term Scoftics. We might also disagree on the quality of the evidence, but that is an area for rigorous debate. But, unlike some others, I have no doubt you would certainly change your opinion (and, in my fondest hopes you will get the chance to do just that soon) once more verifiable data comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 14, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted June 14, 2012 "Someone has now put up a DNA Diagnostics, Inc. FB page. IT IS NOT MINE and I didn't have anything to do with it. Heaven knows what will happen next." http://www.facebook....455944651084323 "DNA Diagnostics Center is different and they are legit." http://www.facebook....tal_comments=15 Wild I hope they don't libel and slander her good company name.... maybe it's just a duplicate name for a legitimate company.... apparently the page is not shaped up and formatted informatively yet.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 From Mr/ Lindays blog BY ROBERT LINDSAY | JUNE 14, 2012 · 1:27 PM Bigfoot News June 14, 2012 The Dr. Melba Ketchum Project – what do we know and how do we know it? People keep asking me to “put up or shut up†about my claims that some Bigfoot samples have been DNA proven Ketchum’s DNA project. What exactly are the rumors, and what are my sources for those rumors? At the moment, all we have are rumors, because there is no published paper. There will be nothing but rumors until there is a published paper. At first Ketchum was just testing the MtDNA, and it kept coming back human, so she just thought there was nothing there. Then Richard Stubstad ran a few of the MtDNA sequences in GenBank and got an interesting result that spurred her on because it was so unusual. Stubstad showed her it was unusual and encouraged her to explore things further because she was ready to quit at this point. Right now she had some very strange MtDNA that was to be honest, modern human, but just barely. This was when she was theorizing Bigfoots were a tribe of “feral humans.†Then at some point she ran the Nuclear DNA, but this was a very long process because the human primers did not work, so they had to keep making their own primers, and they had to keep making them over and over because they only worked for a while and then you had to make new ones. It was all a great big mess. I guess at some point she finished a lot of the NuDNA, and then she got a result that it was outside the human range, anywhere from 10-37% of the way from a human to a chimp. She kept running nuclear genomes, and they all start coming back the same. She figured this is “presumptive for Bigfoot†because it’s coming back no known animal, unknown primate, and basically an unknown hominid somewhere between a human and a chimp. She now has 100 of these sequences, and she thinks she can prove the Bigfoots exist by DNA. So that’s what she means by DNA proven, more like DNA proven “presumptive for Bigfoot†because there is no type specimen. But now she has to prove it in her paper. A lot of that comes from Richard Stubstad, and he had access to more information than the early stuff from the project. The rest of it comes from submitters or people who talked to submitters, who I cannot name, but it includes some big names who you would recognize. They were quoting Ketchum herself. As far as genetic markers, all I know about is the MC1R gene. They ran 4 of those. Two came back exactly the same, and two others came back different. Each one was off by say 1 polymorphism or so out say of 400-500. So these Bigfoots are off from humans by say 4 polymorphisms or so. None of those polymorphisms was within the human range or found in humans. This means that the Bigfoot MC1R gene is basically outside the human range. The source for MC1R gene information is Stubstad. But he won’t give out the exact coding for the gene. They sent the samples out to various different labs, including some of the top private and university labs in the country. It kept coming back “no known animal, unknown primate.†And the primate was close to hominid if you looked closely. For instance, the Bigfoot steak from the Sierra Kills was sent out to eight different labs because they wanted to make sure what it was. The samples were all sent out blindly. A lot of the labs were intrigued by the results, and they were like “What the heck!? What the heck is this anyway!?†They thought the results were very strange. Some of them supposedly figured out what they might be looking at somehow. But they just did their job and handed the results back in. So far out of 200 submissions, they have almost 100 presumptive for Bigfoot, and out of those, they have 28 discreet individuals. I have listed ~10-15 successful samples on my site. The best samples are the Bigfoot steak and JC Johnson’s skunk in a drainpipe sample. There are photos of many of the successful samples on Shawn’s site. Sources for that are people who know submitters, submitters and people on BF Forums, especially “Jody.†Rundown of samples in the Ketchum study. Bigfoot samples submitted: Over 200 Presumptive for Bigfoot: Almost 100 # of Bigfoot individuals represented: 20-28 Details of successful Bigfoot samples: 5 hair samples from Golden Ears Provincial Park in British Colombia, representing 3 separate creatures, a male, a female and a juvenile from a family unit, gathered by the Erickson Project. 1 toenail from Larry Jenkins in the Grand Canyon area of Arizona. 1 blood sample from JC Johnson in the 4 Corners area of New Mexico (skunk in a drainpipe sample). 1 blood sample from Crittenden, Kentucky, gathered by the Erickson Project. Sample was obtained by gluing glass shards on a feeding plate. 1 hair sample from David Paulides’ NABS known as the Ulibarri sample from Hoopa Valley, California. 1 hair sample from Larry Surface in Southern Ohio. Surface shot the controversial nighttime Bigfoot video that was pulled from the web recently. 1 hair sample from Joe Black in the Great Smoky Mountains, Eastern Tennessee. 1 tissue sample in the form of a slice of Bigfoot flesh from Mount Haskell, California from the adult male Bigfoot shot dead by Justin Smeja. 1 large sample of saliva from the Olympic Project obtained via a Bigfoot licking a camera. 1 hair sample from SE Oklahoma collected by TEXLA Cryptozoological Research, whoever they are. 1 blood, tissue and hair sample from a nailboard trap at Snelgrove Lake, Ontario, Canada (presumably successful). That is only 15 of nearly 100 successful Bigfoot samples. I have no idea about the rest. Best Bigfoot samples: Smeja’s Bigfoot steak and JC Johnson’s skunk in a drainpipe Bigfoot sample. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 14, 2012 Share Posted June 14, 2012 Proof is something that occurs in the mind. People can and will choose whether to accept some piece of evidence or to deny that it represents final resolution to a phenomenon. Thats free will. The question is, how many scientists have to agree and which ones, to name a new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Open- and closed-minded are red herrings. The relevant science needed to address the potential reality of bigfoot is that sufficient to warrant the naming of a new species. Bigfoot is a binary: 1 it exists, 0 it does not. Thus, in the context of proving bigfoot, there is no amount of science that "gets us closer"; there's no "progress" in such a thing. Bigfoot is either proven with a specimen or it is not. I have been reading about and studying this phenomenon - including my years of active engagement on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 - for years. I am unconvinced that the quality of the evidence produced for bigfoot is sufficient to be consistent with an otherwise undescribed, giant, hairy hominin living wild and free in temperate North America. That makes me a bigfoot skeptic, and in the eyes of some, a bigfoot "scoftic," a "denialist," and the worst of the worst: a "S"keptic. But does that make me closed-minded? I shouldn't think so, given the amount of time and effort I've invested in learning about and seriously considering what people consider to be the best evidence. I consider myself very open-minded about bigfoot: when one is proven, I'll believe in it. When people get bent out of shape because you don't believe in something that can't be proven, then they are reacting to your lack of faith, not your lack of careful consideration of the evidence, which should be the emphasis if the process used to determine the truth is scientific. My hypothesis regarding bigfoot is falsifiable: if bigfoot is proven - whether by Ketchum, Sykes, or some dude driving a dump truck - my hypothesis ceases to be supported by the available data. That's science. I'd be cool with outcome, i.e., thrilled to have been wrong. What about you? Maybe your hypothesis is that bigfoot does exist. Is there a scenario in which data can be produced that cause you to overturn that hypothesis? If not, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable, thereby rendering it unscientific. That's okay, it just means that you're using some process other than science to develop your opinion on this topic. So, my scientific approach to bigfoot is that my "level of belief" is right now 0%. Pending additional data, I am willing to adjust my level of belief to 100% - a complete reversal of my current world view. I consider 180 degrees to be as open-minded as someone could possibly be. What I just don't get with you Sas is why your cool with being wrong. This attitude is where I see science going. There is not a PASSION to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 If bigfoot does not exist then no matter how much effort someone puts into it they will never be right. I believe that Sas is stating that the current and best evidence does not lead him to the conclusion that BF is a living breathing un-cataloged creature. I happen to agree with that conclusion. However if by some chance it is proven to be true despite all of the odds, what a great thing to be wrong about. The world will instantly become a more interesting and fascinating place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Sooo Saskeptic ....... I'm just curious ..... how many exepeditions to Habituation sites have you been invited to participate in ??( observation type encounters of your own ) ???? I know that There are some Quality folks that you could go with that just might change your mind..... with your own personal encounter ... Next question would be how many have you gone on ??? With the interest you have in SasQuatch.. I would think several ... But your 0% belief signals " None". Then ..... ( I'm just saying or asking ) .... what would be your level of scientific curiosity ???? If the answers to one of the above 2 answers are 0, or 0 and 0 to both , then would you go if invited.... ?? It's been my experience that Many so called open minded Skeptics Types, ( whether Scientists or not ) ... " say " Wouldn't waste my time or etc... etc... " I can print or quote you several from other forums..... I say to accept and go on an invite ( with some one like Bart or Tal or Mike ) would make you opened minded, regardless of your current level of belief and regardless of the success of the expedition.... but to not waste your time would be Closed minded. IMO " Not wanting to waste time " seems to be the so called Sceintific NORM.... for many Scientists ..... They want PROOF delivered on an open plate to their Lab ... maybe like AKA DMK is trying to do... BTW, I am in the Medical Professions and that IMHO Makes me Scientific ( 160 * college hours ) .... I was in Anthropology at one time and the leader in my class .... Marriage seemed to redirect me.... but it was my First Love ... BTW, I'm just curious ....how can your belief level be ( 0 ) when there are so many recorded encounters documented... You don't have to believe any of them, but the volume alone should raise your level from ( 0 ) to maybe 1 or 2 % ... I.m just saying..... if our scientists ALL had the same problem so called BigFooter Scientists have ... we would never have found the Cures for several types of Cancer... or infections .... Pasteur took his observations and turned them in to Penicillin... That to me is the Scientific way ... Not Denial ... Of course I'm just saying Soooo What say you ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Open- and closed-minded are red herrings. \ On the contrary, they are the very essence of the discussion. Open-mindedness is the essence and soul of true scientific inquiry. To analyze the evidence for a claim in a truly impartial manner, without any preconception or filter, and accept the conclusion that it most naturally leads to without considering any other factor. The opposite can only be described as the ultimate in true anti-science. The relevant science needed to address the potential reality of bigfoot is that sufficient to warrant the naming of a new species. Bigfoot is a binary: 1 it exists, 0 it does not. Thus, in the context of proving bigfoot, there is no amount of science that "gets us closer"; there's no "progress" in such a thing. Bigfoot is either proven with a specimen or it is not. That is not true. There are more levels of evidence than either "no evidence" and "absolute proof". The current state of the evidence is strongly in favor of BF being an actual, living creature. That is the best explanation for the sum total of the evidence to hand. I have been reading about and studying this phenomenon - including my years of active engagement on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 - for years. I am unconvinced that the quality of the evidence produced for bigfoot is sufficient to be consistent with an otherwise undescribed, giant, hairy hominin living wild and free in temperate North America. That makes me a bigfoot skeptic, and in the eyes of some, a bigfoot "scoftic," a "denialist," and the worst of the worst: a "S"keptic. But does that make me closed-minded? I shouldn't think so, given the amount of time and effort I've invested in learning about and seriously considering what people consider to be the best evidence. I consider myself very open-minded about bigfoot: when one is proven, I'll believe in it. If you were truly open-minded, you would not insist on absolute proof before admitting a strong evidential case for BF. When people get bent out of shape because you don't believe in something that can't be proven, then they are reacting to your lack of faith, not your lack of careful consideration of the evidence, which should be the emphasis if the process used to determine the truth is scientific. Which the processes of Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al are, but you refuse to credit either their credentials OR their findings in the case of BF, further evidence that you are in fact not being open-minded. What about you? Maybe your hypothesis is that bigfoot does exist. Is there a scenario in which data can be produced that cause you to overturn that hypothesis? Yes, use science of equal or superior quality to show every single eyewitness report is untrue, that every single track and trace impression is fake, that every single hair is either not hair or the hair of some other animal. Skeptics have to be 100% right for there NOT to be a bigfoot. Proponents only have to be right ONCE. The more evidence that piles up, esp hard scientific evidence such as that examined by Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al, the more ridiculous the claims of the Skeptics become. So, my scientific approach to bigfoot is that my "level of belief" is right now 0%. Pending additional data, I am willing to adjust my level of belief to 100% - a complete reversal of my current world view. I consider 180 degrees to be as open-minded as someone could possibly be. Either or thinking is another sign of a closed mind. In the face of the mountain of evidence in favor of BF, it is absolutely unscientific to hold a "level of belief" that is 0%. @Ontario...boy...what a trove...this is the most definitive "leak" yet, assuming it is accurate and reliable. Talk about laying it on the line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 "So, my scientific approach to bigfoot is that my "level of belief" is right now 0%. Pending additional data, I am willing to adjust my level of belief to 100% - a complete reversal of my current world view. I consider 180 degrees to be as open-minded as someone could possibly be." Sas"" Either or thinking is another sign of a closed mind. In the face of the mountain of evidence in favor of BF, it is absolutely unscientific to hold a "level of belief" that is 0%. Mulder Can't believe someone who has studied BF evidence would say this. I can see a skeptic with 20% but 0% is hard to comprehend.. Seems like passive anger leads to tweaking noses here.. The underline button is stuck............or well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted June 15, 2012 Admin Share Posted June 15, 2012 From Mr/ Lindays blog Sources for that are people who know submitters, submitters and people on BF Forums, especially “Jody.†Does he mean our "Jodie"? she left the BFF and now "has seen the light" at the JREF from what I understand... so it I wouldn't put much weight on those rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Open- and closed-minded are red herrings. The relevant science needed to address the potential reality of bigfoot is that sufficient to warrant the naming of a new species. Bigfoot is a binary: 1 it exists, 0 it does not. Thus, in the context of proving bigfoot, there is no amount of science that "gets us closer"; there's no "progress" in such a thing. Bigfoot is either proven with a specimen or it is not. I have been reading about and studying this phenomenon - including my years of active engagement on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 - for years. I am unconvinced that the quality of the evidence produced for bigfoot is sufficient to be consistent with an otherwise undescribed, giant, hairy hominin living wild and free in temperate North America. That makes me a bigfoot skeptic, and in the eyes of some, a bigfoot "scoftic," a "denialist," and the worst of the worst: a "S"keptic. But does that make me closed-minded? I shouldn't think so, given the amount of time and effort I've invested in learning about and seriously considering what people consider to be the best evidence. I consider myself very open-minded about bigfoot: when one is proven, I'll believe in it. When people get bent out of shape because you don't believe in something that can't be proven, then they are reacting to your lack of faith, not your lack of careful consideration of the evidence, which should be the emphasis if the process used to determine the truth is scientific. My hypothesis regarding bigfoot is falsifiable: if bigfoot is proven - whether by Ketchum, Sykes, or some dude driving a dump truck - my hypothesis ceases to be supported by the available data. That's science. I'd be cool with outcome, i.e., thrilled to have been wrong. What about you? Maybe your hypothesis is that bigfoot does exist. Is there a scenario in which data can be produced that cause you to overturn that hypothesis? If not, then your hypothesis is not falsifiable, thereby rendering it unscientific. That's okay, it just means that you're using some process other than science to develop your opinion on this topic. So, my scientific approach to bigfoot is that my "level of belief" is right now 0%. Pending additional data, I am willing to adjust my level of belief to 100% - a complete reversal of my current world view. I consider 180 degrees to be as open-minded as someone could possibly be. Saskeptic, I'd like to direct your attention to the bolded part of your posts. There seems to be a contradiction. Why give careful consideration to evidence that "in your own view" will not prove bigfoot exists? Reality is binary, and since it is not possible to prove a negative, the only resolution is to prove it does , with or without any hypothesis and with the very science you say wouldn't get us any closer. Why consider any evidence if you don't believe BF can be proven? Why would Dr. Bryan Sykes be willing to do a study, if there was no possible outcome of proof in the design of his study using hair analysis? Does faith in science play a part here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts