Guest MikeG Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) And yet Science STILL insists there is no scientific evidence. We hear that from Skeptics all the time. Both statements cannot be correct, unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists. It's that simple. No, it's not that simple. You have been given 5 published works.....pieces of science...., so it is completey wrong to say that science insists that there is no evidence. Utterly wrong. That is quite a different thing from saying that there is any sort of concensus. Indeed, as things stand this week, the weight of scientific opinion is heavily in the the "no" camp, but that doesn't mean that science speaks as one on this. To get all Rumsfeltian about this, science knows that it doesn't know some stuff. There are some things that it knows it doesn't know, and lots of zoology falls in this category. (I have heard estimates that we only know about one thirtieth of all the species on the planet ....but I've also heard that put at 10%). There is other stuff that science doesn't know it doesn't know, but that is for another day. Science is actively looking at this subject, whether or not Melba Ketchum is true to her word. There are Russian and Chinese programmes ative at the moment, I understand. So please understand that Science isn't one big monolithic organisation that proclaims "yay" or "nay" on any given topic, and please don't put words in "Science's" mouth. Mike Edited January 7, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Yes, the natural bleach job some of us are being subjected to. :] That grey hair growing in (reduced pigment - declining levels of melanin)...also clear/white due to the lack of pigment - no melanin. Like our fingernails. Could be, Bigfoots likes gooseberries? It wouldn't have hurt my feelings if he had of elaborated on "characteristic texture of bleached hair." or exactly what region. (this is why these shows drive me nuts) Bigfoot doesn't age; it just stays blurry. :] It would have helped greatly if he had notated the direction the scale pattern layed in relation to the pigmented and non-pigmented sections of the hair. It would have told us which end ( proximal or distal) the bleached end was and settled it for me. Just an interesting link:http://www.sciencedi...092867409003742 This didn't come through for me, maybe I have to be a subscriber? The problem, in the first place; the samples (if in fact, were from an animal - including us/human or unknown species - Still a wee ways from phylogenetic relationships and genetic proximity between humans and Bigfoot.) were so badly degraded that this test was a shot in the dark, so to speak, to find DNA (if any) was present. I agree. That effort was only to establish if further testing should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 No, it's not that simple. You have been given 5 published works.....pieces of science...., so it is completey wrong to say that science insists that there is no evidence. Utterly wrong. That is quite a different thing from saying that there is any sort of concensus. Indeed, as things stand this week, the weight of scientific opinion is heavily in the the "no" camp, but that doesn't mean that science speaks as one on this. To get all Rumsfeltian about this, science knows that it doesn't know some stuff. There are some things that it knows it doesn't know, and lots of zoology falls in this category. (I have heard estimates that we only know about one thirtieth of all the species on the planet ....but I've also heard that put at 10%). There is other stuff that science doesn't know it doesn't know, but that is for another day. Science is actively looking at this subject, whether or not Melba Ketchum is true to her word. There are Russian and Chinese programmes ative at the moment, I understand. So please understand that Science isn't one big monolithic organisation that proclaims "yay" or "nay" on any given topic, and please don't put words in "Science's" mouth. Mike Please tell that to the Skeptics, as the "no scientific evidence" argument is one of their favorites. I'm just pointing out where they contradict themselves...it's not my fault they get all bent out of shape about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 And yet Science STILL insists there is no scientific evidence. We hear that from Skeptics all the time. Both statements cannot be correct, unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists. It's that simple. Mulder if science concludes that a certain piece of evidence is not conclusive then that piece if evidence is no longer evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Apparently, Ketchum has had multiple encounters: http://www.cryptomun...igfoot-witness/ You don't have to be a skeptic to find this damaging to Dr. Ketchum's credibility (if indeed, the posts are from her). To be uncharitable to Dr. Ketchum, one could say she used the wrong word in a previous post and sent out another post trying to cover up her mistake. To be charitable, she used the word she intended but it backfired on her. In any case, you really ought not detail how elusive Bigfoot are and then say you go out and see them, and apparently more than once. Let's hope the DNA report is more cogent then Dr. Ketchum's facebook postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Please tell that to the Skeptics, as the "no scientific evidence" argument is one of their favorites. I think you need to clearly define what you mean when you say 'scientific' evidence. Considering there have been numerous scientists that have examined purported bigfoot evidence (though no actual bigfoot), is there a particular piece of 'scientific' evidence you feel is being ignored by the majority of scientists? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Mulder if science concludes that a certain piece of evidence is not conclusive then that piece if evidence is no longer evidence. It could also mean their "analysis" wasn't good and thorough in the effort to define a new species. Edited January 7, 2012 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 There are reports of game cams being removed or destroyed. Sure, and humans, bears, raccoons, squirrels, etc. should be the prime suspects one should rule out before getting to "bigfoot." Perhaps that may account for the instances when BF is caught unawares. Of course, it is my opinion that a physical hypothesis must include intelligence and culture that is similar to homo sapiens sapiens, to go along with night, stealth, and montane physical adaptations. Otherwise they'd be 'in the bag' already. And if they are all of those things, they could be expected to have an appreciation of man's technology - and its frequently diabolical purposes. (bolding mine) Sure, let's make bigfoot super smart. What are these bigfoots interpreting as the diabolical purpose of those little plastic boxes that humans sometimes attach to trees? Wouldn't deer stands be more likely to be interpreted as diabolical to a bigfoot? Yet we have many anecdotes of hunters seeing bigfoot from their stands or even being approached by them. What about our guns? Would bigfoots interpret them as diabolical? If so, isn't it incongruous that the whole reason we know the name "Melba Ketchum" is because some guy claimed to have shot a bigfoot? There are multiple claims of people shooting bigfoots. Now that's diabolical, but the bigfoots don't seem to be all that good at avoiding guns. Why would they apparently be so good at avoiding camera traps? The interesting question is not that bigfoots can apparently avoid camera traps, it's why would they? If the answer is that bigfoots know that humans with nefarious intent place game cameras in the woods, then what is that intent, what's nefarious about it, and how the heck would the bigfoots know about the intent? According to bigfoot lore, several have been killed by humans with guns, but I know of no anecdote alleging that a bigfoot was somehow harmed (even indirectly) by being photographed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Beckert showed portions of the hair that was dark brown in color and a portion he thought was bleached. The bleached portion,as he called it, was basicly clear or white. It seems odd that a person who has natural dark hair would bleach it white. SY: lots of people bleach their hair....as your local high school or the hair care section of your local Walgreen's or other drug store will show. or just search videos for "bleach hair white". Edited January 7, 2012 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 And yet Science STILL insists there is no scientific evidence. We hear that from Skeptics all the time. Both statements cannot be correct, unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists. Lemme get this straight. You say science won't "engage the evidence." I provide examples of scientists engaging the evidence. You say I'm wrong because science says there is no evidence. (If I was to get all Mulderian on you, I might accuse you of shifting the goal posts, but I won't do that because it's bloody annoying.) Then you throw out this nugget: " . . . unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists." But if I am a scientist and I am a "S"keptic and I admit that evidence exists, then on what grounds can you assert that neither science nor "S"keptics insist there is no evidence? Mulder, you are contradicting your own contradictions! Here's an example from one of those papers I provided for you. Coltman and Davis conducting a phylogenetic analysis of putative bigfoot hair collected near Teslin, Yukon in 2005. There had been a rash of sightings in this area, and residents collected some hairs one morning in the vicinity of a multiple eyewitness encounter of a large bipedal animal moving through the brush and near a footprint. All of these elements, the sightings, the footprint, and hair are "bigfoot evidence." Dave Coltman and Corey Davis from the University of Alberta engaged the evidence by running a DNA analysis and phylogenetic placement of the signature. Their results clearly showed that the DNA obtained from the hairs was that of a bison. They published a manuscript based on their analysis in the prestigious TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution. Clearly, the hairs should no longer be considered bigfoot evidence. When analyzed, they were confirmed to be bison evidence instead. Should the eyewitness accounts and the footprint still be considered bigfoot evidence? Maybe, but Coltman and Davis only analyzed the hair because, as molecular biologists, that's where their expertise lies. What, in your eyes, is wrong with what Coltman, Davis, and the editors at TRENDS did with respect to this case? (Fair warning: any answer other than "nothing" would be . . . um, puzzling, to say the least. ColtmanandDavis2006.pdf) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 (edited) Saskeptic, I appreciate your reluctance to tread along the speculative path with me, even hypothetically, but I should hope that the distinction between a trap that activates within, say, 50 feet on the outside is quite different than being shot from several hundred yards away. And I should also think that an animal living in the wild and having the potential for insight might object to the impact of technological / industrial society on their ecosystem. They might even be hostile. You have seen "Avatar," right? Edited January 7, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Robert Lindsay (probably with some help from Richard Stubstad) points out that the book Tribal Bigfoot, by David Paulides, mentions on pages 372 & 373 the Hoopa Valley “Ullibarri†sample. and dated Mar. 21, 2009. They had sequenced nuDNA [by Ketchum] and were analyzing X/Y chromosome markers. (Amelogenin Locus). The result indicated was not normal for humans....The Ullibarri sample is said to have made it into the study as presumptive for Bigfoot. 2 years, 9 1/2 months, and nary a paper published (or possibly not even submitted or even written), nary an abstract presented at a scientific meeting for discussion, ideas, reaction, criticism, improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Robert Lindsay (probably with some help from Richard Stubstad) points out that the book Tribal Bigfoot, by David Paulides, mentions on pages 372 & 373 2 years, 9 1/2 months, and nary a paper published (or possibly not even submitted or even written), nary an abstract presented at a scientific meeting for discussion, ideas, reaction, criticism, improvement. Perhaps those results are what spurred investment from Hersom. Maybe that sample is included in the present study and it truly validates the creature's existence. Here's hopin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted January 7, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted January 7, 2012 Well Hersom should know if he funded 75% or more of the dna analyses wouldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Mulder if science concludes that a certain piece of evidence is not conclusive then that piece if evidence is no longer evidence. Evidence = "Proof" fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts