Incorrigible1 Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I was referring to the constant drawing from Legend meets Science and it's so called experts as if this is absolute truth. Btw, being an eyewitness doesn't make you immune to misidentification. Many aspects of LMS are very fallible if not dubious as are claims made by those would be experts. Conversely, I could mention a skeptic or two that never lose the opportunity (sometimes when such hasn't presented itself) to quote chapter and verse of Greg Long's The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. It's probably human nature, but there is a mirror image occurring from the skeptic's viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Y'all pooh'ed pooh'ed this when I pointed it out a year ago, but men are really way too sensitive. I feel, " He Ain't heavy, He's My Brother" coming on and I think I'm going to puke. Just for you guys: The road is long With many a winding turn That leads us to who knows where Who knows when But I'm strong Strong enough to carry him He ain't heavy, he's my brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 As for physical traits: All one can do is make judgements based on alleged sightings, photos, video. That goes for Meldrum also; The visible traits (PGF being one example); study of foot castings; can only take it so far. DNA will decide where Bigfoot will fit in the Hominidae family (Differences in genetic factors, and if and when a specimen is available, we'll learn more about biological factors). More data, i.e., fossil records, would help to establish when and where these Bigfoot speciated. Unless, we have a completely extraterrestrial genetic makeup Bigfoot :] That might lead into some kind of Panspermia hypothesis. Bigfoot UFO connections. :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Y'all pooh'ed pooh'ed this when I pointed it out a year ago, but men are really way too sensitive. How did you get that idea ~ Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Personal experience does not necessarily translate to general acceptance. "The main perpetuating mechanism" for Bigfoot belief is the largely uncritical accepting of information from pro-Bigfoot outlets and sources. (Obviously, since most pro-Bigfoot proponents do not experience sightings or other evidence directly). Did a Bigfoot hunter really shoot a Bigfoot in Oklahoma recently? If I'm a Bigfoot believer I'll go with the story ---- even though, like most such cases, the event was underinvestigated (i.e., investigated primarily by fellow believing Bigfooters) and presented to the public only through pro-Bigfoot information dissemination. Consider this: on one website that accumulates Bigfoot sightings there are listed two Bigfoot sightings only a 45 minutes ride up the freeway from where I am sitting right this moment. I'm located virtually in the middle of a major metropolitan area. Even prominent Bigfoot believers will say that a majority of sightings are misidentifications or hoaxes. I'm beginning to wonder if something else is in play. Consider this website again. http://treepeekers.w...us-stop-prints/ What do you make of this? Is this the next step in believing Bigfootery? About the DNA report. I don't think Parn is merely saying that the report will say Bigfoot DNA is 100% human. Instead, it will claim the DNA shows some small divergence from Gen Bank 100% human, but that this will be an eventually indefensible position and others will conclude the DNA samples are 100% human and that the report mistaken. I;m going to take another shot at this one Jerry, now that I have time to type. re: personal evperience...no, it doesn't translate to general acceptance of other people, but does convince the person experiencing of certain facts that occur in nature. Some hear the vocals, whistles and knocks. some see the creature, some see the creature do X. etc. some find the tracks, some see the sign and collect physical evidence and tests their perception against scientific rigor. if simply wanted to believe they wouldn't bother testing anything. re: perpetuating the phenomenon, already said my piece here, but this "The main perpetuating mechanism" for Bigfoot belief is the largely uncritical accepting of information from pro-Bigfoot outlets and sources. It's not outright acceptance or belief for me personally, and I think I speak for some others who caught the bug to search for bigfoot when I say that we accept the possibility it is there, and if it is, we want personal confirmation one way or the other and then some want proof. Skeptics don't realise that they are not so different, the best information comes from the experiences of the man in the mirror right? re: couple sightings 45 minute drive from you. What are you going to do about that jerry? Are they in a suitable habitat for most other wildlife, along a river maybe? re: The website, I went to it, and read some not all. I can't say what they are encountering or experiencing but i know how it comes off to you no doubt. I can see that some people are in a terrible position when they can't find a sientific or rational explanation for what they know or experience. re: DNA , I'm expecting something divergent enough for the paper, I know that some of the evidence shouldn't be 100% human ss. We don't know that some of the samples couldn't be further from human than chimps in certain respects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Hi Please let's assume that BF is an Ape and not any sort of human, i say that cause for all the years i have been into this subject the majority of known researchers, PHD'S and enthusiasts have pretty much based this BF thing on it being Ape, it has only been recently or since this DNA thing started saying human, some all the sudden have switched to it being some sort of human, i am not so gullible so i'll stick to what it has been for the last 50 years, after all humans walk on two legs, apes are quads, and we all know BF has been seen on all fours running like hell.(that's if the reports are reliable) Apes do not have a " larynx " so speech is out of the question, sounds and alike they can do but not talk. Apes do not learn how to communicate like the BF have been said to do, Apes have to be taught to do that. Onto the Cameras ~ simple one here, a lot of good hunters can take the smell out of a camera with today's new products, that leaves only so called micro waves and that is just an excuse for not getting a good or any BF picture, these waves don't seem to bother any other animals so why a BF. I am just talking here and throwing out some stuff i have learned, i am not trying to be an expert in any way or pushy. Tim ~ Hi Tim, If science has taught me anything, it's this: Assume Nothing. If Sasquattle exist, we won't know whether they can talk until we have one in a lab. However, we DO know that known apes communicate a ton. They may not "speak" but they have gestures, body language, and all sorts of calls. All primates do: http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/av/vocals/ Regarding trail cams, please bear in mind that most of them scream in the ultra-sonic range. That said, many animals in the woods hear that sound and probably avoid the area and, perhaps, alert one another. (I'd like to see some research on that.) We have all heard agitated squirrel sounds yes? If I was a sneaky smart critter trying to avoid detection and I heard some panic/alert calls from other animals, I'd know something is up. The forrest tells a vivid story to a pair of trained ears. Again, if they exist, we have no way of knowing what their hearing is like or what their awareness level is like though we can speculate intelligently that they are either very stealthy and aware of their surroundings or epically lucky at avoiding human contact. My guess would be both. No pushiness here either man. Happy Holidays! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 Sasquattle? I think I like that better than Sasquai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) That said, many animals in the woods hear that sound and probably avoid the area and, perhaps, alert one another. (I'd like to see some research on that.) We have all heard agitated squirrel sounds yes? Edit to add: Edited December 17, 2011 by HucksterFoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 I;m going to take another shot at this one Jerry, now that I have time to type. re: personal evperience...no, it doesn't translate to general acceptance of other people, but does convince the person experiencing of certain facts that occur in nature. Some hear the vocals, whistles and knocks. some see the creature, some see the creature do X. etc. some find the tracks, some see the sign and collect physical evidence and tests their perception against scientific rigor. if simply wanted to believe they wouldn't bother testing anything. re: perpetuating the phenomenon, already said my piece here, but this It's not outright acceptance or belief for me personally, and I think I speak for some others who caught the bug to search for bigfoot when I say that we accept the possibility it is there, and if it is, we want personal confirmation one way or the other and then some want proof. Skeptics don't realise that they are not so different, the best information comes from the experiences of the man in the mirror right? re: couple sightings 45 minute drive from you. What are you going to do about that jerry? Are they in a suitable habitat for most other wildlife, along a river maybe? re: The website, I went to it, and read some not all. I can't say what they are encountering or experiencing but i know how it comes off to you no doubt. I can see that some people are in a terrible position when they can't find a sientific or rational explanation for what they know or experience. re: DNA , I'm expecting something divergent enough for the paper, I know that some of the evidence shouldn't be 100% human ss. We don't know that some of the samples couldn't be further from human than chimps in certain respects. SY, I'm not sure we hold conflicting views here. Take these two propositions: 1. Most people who believe in Bigfoot believe because of their exposure to pro-Bigfoot books (Green, Meldrum, Krantz, Sanderson, etc.), or television programming (Monster Quest, Finding Bigfoot, In Search Of ..., Mysterious Monsters, etc.), or movies (Legend of Boggy Creek, The Abominable Snowman, Snow Creature, etc.), or pro-Bigfoot web sites (largely uncritical), and their own uncritical assessment of such influences. 2. Most people who believe in Bigfoot believe because of their own personal experiences, such as seeing a Bigfoot, or finding Bigfoot tracks, or hearing Bigfoot hoots and howls, or having rocks mysteriously thrown their direction in the woods, etc,, or else have family or friends who have experienced such phenomena. Proposition 1. is a correct assessment of the majority of Bigfoot belief, I think. I hope you are not thinking number 2. is closer to a true assessment of belief in Bigfoot. Occasionally I hear a member of a Bigfoot research group comment that she/he became interested in the Bigfoot issue because of having viewed The Legend of Boggy Creek or the Patterson film when they were youngsters. I understand. From personal experience, I was exposed to many of these influences when I was a teenager and I became hooked on the subject. You could say I was a believer. If my belief was not due to an innate desire to believe (for whatever the reason), then the alternative explanation would be simple naivety. People believe all sorts of things without questioning or thinking why? I respect the fact that you are willing and able to move to the field to test the idea of Bigfoot. And with all due repect, that willing has to color how you interpret the evidence you find. That is, if your willing originates in a believing attitude rather than a questioning, objective attitude. As to the DNA report, here is "JavaBob" on the results so far: http://www.squidoo.com/bigfoot-dna His rehash seems to give credence to Parn's assessment or prediction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 The green lines seal the deal for me, HucksterFoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 As to the DNA report, here is "JavaBob" on the results so far: http://www.squidoo.com/bigfoot-dna His rehash seems to give credence to Parn's assessment or prediction. Is that really surprising? Parn's prediction and Java Bob's "rehash" are both largely based on outdated information from Richard Stubstad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 Hi Tim, Regarding trail cams, please bear in mind that most of them scream in the ultra-sonic range. That said, many animals in the woods hear that sound and probably avoid the area and, perhaps, alert one another. (I'd like to see some research on that.) We have all heard agitated squirrel sounds yes? If I was a sneaky smart critter trying to avoid detection and I heard some panic/alert calls from other animals, I'd know something is up. The forrest tells a vivid story to a pair of trained ears. Again, if they exist, we have no way of knowing what their hearing is like or what their awareness level is like though we can speculate intelligently that they are either very stealthy and aware of their surroundings or epically lucky at avoiding human contact. My guess would be both. but all species of North American large mammals have been photographed by these millions of trail cams. So your argument doesn't hold water even if they could detect ultrasound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 jerrywayne: People believe all sorts of things without questioning or thinking why? I respect the fact that you are willing and able to move to the field to test the idea of Bigfoot. And with all due repect, that willing has to color how you interpret the evidence you find. That is, if your willing originates in a believing attitude rather than a questioning, objective attitude." I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Yes, SOME people believe all sorts of things without questioning or thinking why, but as well, SOME people have an inate sense of questioning most everything and wanting to consider alternatives to fully understand a subject or a phenomenon. You seem to be arguing that any interest in the potential validity of Bigfoot (enough to want to "test the idea" ) negates a person's objectivity, and I find this a false assumption. All good science is predicated on a willingness to "test the idea", and such a willingness has no across the board connection to the fundamental objectivity (or lack of) of the person. If, early in a person's education, that person is taught to value objective analysis and deductive reasoning, than any future topic the person chooses to explore, regardless of what introduced the idea to the person, will be put through that learned objective reasoning method. The "believing attitude" is far too commonly used to dismiss a fair minded exploration of the bigfoot phenomenon by people who really are objective. The "unbelieving attitude" (held by people who cannot give the phenomenon a fair consideration for the mystery that it is) is also far too common among people who simply want to turn their backs on a truthful and scientific and objective exploration of the topic. If you have a method or formula for getting inside another person's head and doing a full evaluation of that person's capacity to be objective and apply deductive reasoning in a responsible way, please share with us this special skill. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 As to the DNA report, here is "JavaBob" on the results so far: http://www.squidoo.com/bigfoot-dna His rehash seems to give credence to Parn's assessment or prediction. One more time folks, the samples analyzed statistically by Stubstad were not used in the study, or so I remember him saying. I have tried to go back into Stubstad's content to look for the quote, but unfortunately I can't seem to go further back than when the forum crashed and destroyed my ID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) Is that really surprising? Parn's prediction and Java Bob's "rehash" are both largely based on outdated information from Richard Stubstad. It's not outdated. It's data that she has. It's data that she may use. At the least it's reflective of Ketchum's thinking and how she initially decided she had bigfoot DNA and thus got herself into this. But you do bring up an important point. If Ketchum is deciding which specimens are "in" and which are "out" of the "study" she's potentially shredding its credibility. Cherry picking, it's called. This is particularly bad if Ketchum is trying to make statistical arguments. Not unlike the researchers who exclude sighting reports that they think are "not credible" (as if....). The other bases of my prediction are: The error previously made by someone not well versed in primate DNA and population genetics in interpreting the Snelgrove Lake DNA Ketchum's training and experience Ketchum's legal and business issues Ketchum's social media posts and the Honobia fiasco. The continuing arrogant statements made by Paulides about human bigfoots, and the close relationship between him and Ketchum Paulides connection with isolated NA populations Ketchum's connections (and specimen connections) with people associated with hoaxing. The 'feral' human domain name the failure of Ketchum to get anything published after all this time strongly suggests she has no "1/3 of the way to a chimp" kind of results. Ketchum's early statements indicating that she has many specimens from bigfeet (how easy are these things to find?????) (not to mention the exceedingly low likelihood that a flesh and blood bigfoot exists as something other than run of the mill people and bears.) Did I forget anything? probably, but I'll get to you. Edited December 18, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts