yowiie Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I must have missed the test result document that said 'This hair is Bigfoot' Drew I have scanned my hair results from Dr Fahrenbach on this site, but according to some we don't have BF in Australia, so they don't count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 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. I can hypothesize that I have a hair sample from an undescribed hominin. That is falsifiable, and testable. The difference is that the term "bigfoot" represents a hypothetical entity, while a hair sample is an objective piece of biological evidence eminating from a biological entity and can be proven to belong to something else if not something fitting the description of bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I must have missed the test result document that said 'This hair is Bigfoot' No, you just ignore the test results that say "unknown primate" because they destroy your "no BF" theory utterly. Unless you are positing ANOTHER unknown bipedal primate standing 7+ feet tall leaving oversize tracks all over the place? Yet another example of the closed mind. Drew I have scanned my hair results from Dr Fahrenbach on this site, but according to some we don't have BF in Australia, so they don't count According to Skeptics, nothing counts until BF is "proven" via a full type specimen. Which says more about their unscientific attitude than it does about the state of BF evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Well it's been amusing to come back this afternoon and see how folks have proven my point for me. It wasn't unexpected, but it is amusing! Why consider any evidence if you don't believe BF can be proven? Why do you think I don't believe bigfoot could be proven? Were you confused by my comments that said that bigfoot could be proven?? According to Skeptics, nothing counts until BF is "proven" via a full type specimen. Which says more about their unscientific attitude than it does about the state of BF evidence. Psst, Mulder: What you want is for bigfoot to be proven via a type specimen. That is science. If that type specimen is a drop of drool on a plate, then so be it. What I just don't get with you Sas is why your cool with being wrong. Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 If a molar tooth can be the type specimen for Gigantipithecus, a Bigfoot steak with its DNA characterized would surely be an adequate type specimen for Bigfoot. There is no dilemma here as some are trying to imply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 ^Tell that to the Skeptics. I just read COGrizzley, for example, in That Forum saying he would not accept DNA results absent a full body or at least a significant part thereof in addition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) ^Tell that to the Skeptics. Hey, you posted this a mere 23 minutes after I posted this: "If that type specimen is a drop of drool on a plate, then so be it." Are you insinuating that I'm no longer a "S"keptic? Lord knows you can't do that, 'cause I still don't believe in bigfoot. Edited June 16, 2012 by MikeG ..........Personal comment removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 ^I think I understand what Saskeptic is trying to say. A drop of drool on a plate is enough as long as it is scientifically proven to actually belong to "Bigfoot". Claims and statistics are not enough for the average "skeptic" I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Particle Noun Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 I can only imagine the nightmare skeptics are in for if the Big guy is authenticated with either of these DNA studies. I don't mean that derisively, either. I imagine everyone from UFO nuts (of which I don't lump all UFO enthusiasts) to every other type of cryptid enthusiast will use the skeptics stalwart (and often understandable) denial of bigfoot against them in regards to their own personal area of interest: -See, if all these witnesses were right about Bigfoot, then there MUST be aliens, look at all the reports! -If there really was a bigfoot in all of those blobsquatch pictures, then you must take my ghost-orb photo's seriously now! You guys were wrong! -etc etc etc. Of course, each phenomena has to be met on its own terms, so the steadfast skeptic is well within character not to accept any of these phenomena without concrete evidence (as well they shouldn't). But the lay voices of protest will be ever louder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) Hey, you posted this a mere 23 minutes after I posted this: "If that type specimen is a drop of drool on a plate, then so be it." Are you insinuating that I'm no longer a "S"keptic? Lord knows you can't do that, 'cause I still don't believe in bigfoot. Ok, so you're "one"...only a few hundred thousand or so to go... Edited June 16, 2012 by MikeG .......quote adjusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Once Sykes is finished, the ball should be rolling fairly well. Then it will be universities demanding a carcass. At that point will the government cough up the ones they have on ice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 (edited) At that point will the government cough up the ones they have on ice? I doubt it. But maybe they will be more open to releasing info if asked for? Edited June 15, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2012 Share Posted June 15, 2012 Indiefoot- to answer your question, IMHO and a little experience about how government agencies work, no agency is going to play along and give up any information unless they want to, even if you have the "goods". They probably have body parts but they have no obligation to play their hand. ptangier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 I can only imagine the nightmare skeptics are in for if the Big guy is authenticated with either of these DNA studies. I don't mean that derisively, either. I imagine everyone from UFO nuts (of which I don't lump all UFO enthusiasts) to every other type of cryptid enthusiast will use the skeptics stalwart (and often understandable) denial of bigfoot against them in regards to their own personal area of interest: -See, if all these witnesses were right about Bigfoot, then there MUST be aliens, look at all the reports! -If there really was a bigfoot in all of those blobsquatch pictures, then you must take my ghost-orb photo's seriously now! You guys were wrong! -etc etc etc. Of course, each phenomena has to be met on its own terms, so the steadfast skeptic is well within character not to accept any of these phenomena without concrete evidence (as well they shouldn't). But the lay voices of protest will be ever louder. Interesting point. If cryptozoologists never tire of mentioning the okapi, coelacanth, and mountain gorilla in defending their discipline against charges of "monster hunting", we can imagine what really finding Bigfoot will do to the fields of paranormalism and Forteana. ^Tell that to the Skeptics. I just read COGrizzley, for example, in That Forum saying he would not accept DNA results absent a full body or at least a significant part thereof in addition. Well, DNA results can sometimes be a muddle. A full body or a significant part of a body is not an unreasonable request. It is interesting how the Bigfoot story is evolving. Once upon a time, most advocates agreed that a body was necessary to confirm the existence of Bigfoot. Now, I'm hearing more and more advocates pretend that the issue is already settled in favor of existence and we just need to leave the magnificent creatures alone and infer from a distance what they are really like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) Why do you think I don't believe bigfoot could be proven? I think it was this statement. 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. Were you confused by my comments that said that bigfoot could be proven?? If that type specimen is a drop of drool on a plate, then so be it. Ahh, that makes better sense, you've been harping on the complete body in the past, and that's what I figured you meant. A drop of drool isn't a type specimen without the science. So more science applied to that "is" progress, No? Edited June 16, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts