Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) denialist said:Give me a break..."volumes of available bigfoot evidence." Hiding under our noses, in a country of over 300+ million people, is a breeding population of 8 ft+ 600lb+ man apes. Yet we our unable to get 1 unambiguous photo? Do explain please. They recently found over 60,000 lowland gorillas that no one knew were there in an area just 47,000 km2, so it's very possible for there to be a sizeable BF population in a landmass much larger than that. And I note the use of your "weasel out" word ("ambiguous"). Any good photo automatically gets labeled as being either not good enough or if it's "too good" then it's a hoax. Nice tidy way to keep playing the 'no evidence' card. Too bad it's not intellectually honest. Edited October 26, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 And what is a "good" photo mulder? Temagami? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That would be on my short list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Would other things on that list be: Mud that an elk laid in A malnourished bear(It's a fact Bfs can not be caught on a game cam, so only explanation) A never-ending DNA study A hiker walking on a ridge a few hundred yards away Another hiker caught on a ridge(except this time in the snow) A man crawling to get a zagnut bar A person in a gorilla costume running across a clearing at a couple hundred yards etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I think you forgot the PGF on that list. Bigfoot skeptics generally consider it as the greatest hoax ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 That's a whole other can of worms...I thought best to not involve iot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 We are on the 281st page and there is no sign of this paper being released any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Enough of this bashing science crap, there is no agenda, show proof and they willhappily look into it. I think that is our point, science "is" looking into it, so somebody must have proof, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Dr. Meldrum described exactly what we can accomplish with DNA and no type specimen in a recent interview, and made it easy to understand why even though it falls short of 100% proof of the existence of bigfoot, it is still a huge step and much more than just some blank strand of unknown DNA: Without a type specimen we are dealing with a sequence of an unknown species... we can still generate a sequence and then compare that sequence to known species, and thereby establish that this unknown falls within the family tree here; it's closest to these species of animal. Also some cool stuff about the Falcon Project there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Would other things on that list be: Mud that an elk laid in Not proven. NO scientific evidence counters the studies and observations of Dr Meldrum, Swindler, Sariamento, Schaller, et al. A malnourished bear I'm ambivilant about the Jacobs photo myself. (It's a fact Bfs can not be caught on a game cam, so only explanation) First, it's NOT a fact. Second, there are other very interesting game cam photos, some more clear than others. A never-ending DNA study You got proof that there is no study? A man crawling to get a zagnut bar Proof? If it's the thermal I'm thinking of, they did size comparison studies that showed the subject was much larger than a man. A person in a gorilla costume running across a clearing at a couple hundred yards etc. Well, you're certainly living up to your name, denialist. This is typical Skeptic argumentation: deny deny deny deny. All photos are hoaxed or "inconclusive", all eyewitnesses are lying or wrong. No scientific opinions supporting BF have any validity. SSDD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Dang, accidentally plussed your post when I only wanted to quote it. I just wanted to say that so far all photos ARE hoaxes or inconclusive. If it wasn't like that, BF would have been proven by now. (This is coming from a proponent.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I meant to +1 that one. That's why we are all scouring this thread and hoping for something conclusive. There are certainly some interesting photos, footprints, and reports but we need denialist-proof stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Now that spike tv is offering 10 million to anyone who can prove the existence of bigfoot, I expect all of these folks that have been setting on the "proof" for years will now run to Spike to collect their 10 million. Some folks such as Erikson will regret holding the proof so long if someone beats them to the punch and they lose out on the 10 million. Maybe this is what is holding up the paper. Maybe Dr. K new the 10 million prize was going to be put on the table so she waited until it was announced. I expect that she is running to spike right now to collect the 10 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Dang, accidentally plussed your post when I only wanted to quote it. I just wanted to say that so far all photos ARE hoaxes or inconclusive. If it wasn't like that, BF would have been proven by now. (This is coming from a proponent.) And that is why the science of Bigfoot has not advanced. Unwarranted assumptions. There are certainly some interesting photos, footprints, and reports but we need denialist-proof stuff. Nothing is denialist-proof. They will deny ANYTHING short of a body, and some of them would deny the body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts