Jump to content

Neanderthal locomotion


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Pathetic.


LOL Stay mad buddy.

 

21 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

Any scientist worth his salt should clearly be able to wade through surface level nonsense such as hoaxes and the ludicrous supernatural claims. 


The problem is, the community has a certain reputation attached to it because of the supernatural side and as such Scientists aren’t really aware of worthwhile claims and evidence and they don’t really want to look into it. To them, there are far better uses of their time and resources than trying to find an undiscovered North American anthropoid.

 

 

Edited by MonkeMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:


LOL Stay mad buddy.

 


The problem is, the community has a certain reputation attached to it because of the supernatural side and as such Scientists aren’t really aware of worthwhile claims and evidence and they don’t really want to look into it. To them, there are far better uses of their time and resources then trying to find an undiscovered North American anthropoid.

 

 

I don't know where these scientists have been hiding. If they can't find any of the often anecdotal, but very credible evidence that's been in existence for decades, I don't have much faith in their investigative ability. The woo is relatively new and if it scares em off, well, they don't deserve to be called "scientists," despite what they paid for the moniker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kiwakwe said:

I don't know where these scientists have been hiding. If they can't find any of the often anecdotal, but very credible evidence that's been in existence for decades, I don't have much faith in their investigative ability. 



Scientists don’t view anecdotes as evidence. Even studies in EP that use self reported data tend to be heavily criticized.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In spite of all that, scientific peer pressure rules. The track records of the likes of Meldrum and Bindernagel help drive that point home. And unless younger scientists who are more likely to have grown up with a better awareness of the BF phenomenon step up then I could expect more of the same. And then there's the US government's Office of Science and Technology. I do think it influences the types of research that are sanctioned and therefore the most eligible to secure research funding. I mean, MIT or Stanford might be able go a long way on this subject if they wanted to, or could. And then there's the deep-pocketed USGS which has unlimited resources to throw the snowballs that agencies like the USFS and USFW tell them to throw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
11 hours ago, MonkeMan said:

Unsurprisingly, you've missed the point. The video "evidence" used to prove the existence of Sasquatch is more likely to be faked than body cam footage.

 

False equivalence.........

 

While I agree that sasquatch videos are more likely to be hoaxed than security ir police cams, the use of both are identical: provide evidence that can be used to discover the truth. The difference in legal videos and sasquatch videos is who uses them and who ignores them. In the case of legal videos, officials use them both officially and as public information tools. In the case of sasquatch videos, the PG and Freeman videos in particular, they are COMPLETELY ignored by the officials responsible for the land and wildlife management where the videos were shot. I say that this fact is not one of simple interest or "conclusiveness" of the said videos, but is a consistent pattern seen in other issues with officials and is intentional.

 

Quote

........Did you consider what I said about Nazi's to be political?........

 

It was certainly more political and irrelevant than my mention of law enforcement and the courts with regard rto photographic evidence. 

 

 

Quote

........Why would you think it was?........

 

I don't. That's why I wrote those words. That is YOUR argument, not mine.

 

Quote

.......Clearly overstating the possible legitimacy of the film.........

 

Over a half century of study and even very aggressive (and failed) attempts to debunk it justify the description of "highly likely to be the real thing", and very CLEARLY justifies an official statement from the appropriate officials on why the issue is not even investigated.

 

Quote

........That's not how burden of proof works.........

 

Then you will have to become accustomed to me demanding an official explanation on why they refuse to investigate the phenomenon while trace evidence, photographic evidence, and eyewitness reports continue to accumulate.

 

Quote

.......I get it, you're not used to your worldview being challenged and that makes you angry but there is no reason to be so combative.........

 

I'm combative by nature. Nothing pleases me more than whipping ass in any and every possible way. I'd rather fight than switch. Ignorant and feckless "challenge" to my world view is just another invitation for me to play. 

 

Quote

.......It was to network and discuss, but honestly I don't think this forum is for me. Reddit is far more tolerant of opposing views. Ironically.........

 

Aren't you the guy advising zero "tolerance" for "woo" in order to finally get the responsible "scientists" to investigate (as if we're really stupid enough to accept that lame advice)?

 

Quote

.......I'm waiting.........

 

Hold your breath in anticipation, please.........

 

Quote

.........Actually Grizzlies have been known to kill adult moose quite often........

 

Yes, just like the relationship between leopards and gorillas. The predator can take sick, injured, tired adults with smaller risk.

 

You know, this entire derail regarding leopards/gorillas and moose/bears (predator/prey) stems from you ridiculous comments regarding black bears "easily" killing sasquatches, your refusal to back off on them, and your insistence on repeating them. Aren't you ready to moderate those claims?


 

Quote

 

........You should probably re-read my comments, as this is clearly not the case. I would explain it to you, but I don't think you're really interested in anything that goes against the narrative you've already built about me........

 

 

I've read and re-read your comments, and I again counter your claims. I have not built a narrative about you. You've done that yourself.

 

Quote

.........You better be careful. You could easily be mauled........

 

Yup. Many here believe that is just a matter of time..........

 

Quote

.........Irrelevant. In fact, having low reproduction rates can decrease predation risk.

 

You are an interesting individual. Your use of references to sidestep and evade the traps you build for yourself are becoming a pattern. I'll assume you've learned such tactics from sites like Reddit. I'll simply let that attempt slide by and see if you're willing to admit that your claims about black bears "easily able to kill a sasquatch" were a stretch...........

 

If not, I'll just put you in the woo box with the sasquatch smoking buddies..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:



Scientists don’t view anecdotes as evidence. Even studies in EP that use self reported data tend to be heavily criticized.

 

I understand that but when there is THAT much smoke...It's an invitation to do a proper study, to find the scientifically accepted evidence. There is a reason they haven't, it's not the woo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Donor
52 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

.......The problem is, the community has a certain reputation attached to it because of the supernatural side and as such Scientists aren’t really aware of worthwhile claims and evidence and they don’t really want to look into it. To them, there are far better uses of their time and resources than trying to find an undiscovered North American anthropoid.

 

Sorry, that lame excuse doesn't fly for officials who are legally responsible for the management of public lands and wildlife. There is MORE than enough evidence of sasquatches in some areas to justify official participation in seeking answers.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

While I agree that sasquatch videos are more likely to be hoaxed than security ir police cams,

 

Thank you.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

It was certainly more political

 

How?

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

That is YOUR argument,

 

No it's not. 

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Over a half century of study and even very aggressive (and failed) attempts to debunk it

 

I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't think those attempts have failed. I'm not really sure where this narrative that the PG film is this "ironclad evidence that science refuses to acknowledge!!1!"  comes from. As it's validity has not been proven either way.

 

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

'm combative by nature.

 

As am I. But unfortunately there is a double standard in place where members (including a moderator) can insult me and if I defend myself I am suspended for 2 days.

 

So calm down. It's just the internet.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

lame advice

 

LOL What's lame about it? 

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Hold your breath in anticipation, please

 

Ah, so now you're telling me to kill myself, yet no words from the Mods. Hilarious! Still waiting.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

The predator can take sick, injured, tired adults with smaller risk.

 

They can take non-sick adults as well. But that's actually irrelevant to the point that I'm making, which I stated multiple comments ago which you seemed to have already forgotten.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

your refusal to back off on them, and your insistence on repeating them. Aren't you ready to moderate those claims?

 

Why would I back off on them when you have yet to offer a decent rebuttal to the reasoning and evidence I've laid out for my "argument"?

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

I again counter your claims.

 

Counter them all you'd like, you're still wrong. Science is not this monolith of thought. There is extreme diversity within each field, ad I would not be here if I simply just believed whatever the consensus on any topic is. Quit mistaking my explanations for why some scientists disregard Bigfoot with my actual opinions. I will not tell you again.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Your use of references to sidestep and evade

 

No I use my references to refute the erroneous claims made by individuals who aren't really educated on the relevant literature.

 

Right now you're actually sidestepping the fact that I refuted your assertion by trying to attack my character. You're not fooling anyone. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kiwakwe said:

I understand that but when there is THAT much smoke...It's an invitation to do a proper study, to find the scientifically accepted evidence. There is a reason they haven't, it's not the woo.

 

Are you sure you understand it? Because if you did I feel as though you'd realize that my point is that because of the reputation your community has scientists may not even be aware of the "smoke". Furthermore, even if the relevant groups thought there was smoke there are many things that would take priority over searching for Bigfoot.

 

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Sorry, that lame excuse doesn't fly for officials who are legally responsible for the management of public lands and wildlife. There is MORE than enough evidence of sasquatches in some areas to justify official participation in seeking answers.

 

You need to realize that as far as evidence goes Scientists have much higher standards than laymen such as yourself.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

 

Are you sure you understand it? Because if you did I feel as though you'd realize that my point is that because of the reputation your community has scientists may not even be aware of the "smoke". Furthermore, even if the relevant groups thought there was smoke there are many things that would take priority over searching for Bigfoot.

 

 

You need to realize that as far as evidence goes Scientists have much higher standards than laymen such as yourself.


Like what!!!?? In Biology? What discovery could be more significant than a archaic bipedal ape man? A new species of ant in the Congo? A new species of bird in the Amazon? Quite laughable by comparison. The point you seem incapable of grasping it that scientists don’t shy from this subject based on portals or shape shifting. They find it laughable a creature like Sasquatch still exists on earth let alone N. America!!! Full stop!

 

How many years have you spent in the field collecting evidence only to have it slapped back into your face!!?? Ya…. I think we get it. You will find some scorn on the BFF from researchers against science for this very reason…. 
 

I don’t like what science asks of us? But I have accepted it. Many have not. Physical evidence will end all of these debates. Unless there are other cryptids left to discovery.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, norseman said:


Like what!!!?? In Biology? What discovery could be more significant than a archaic bipedal ape man? A new species of ant in the Congo? A new species of bird in the Amazon? Quite laughable by comparison. The point you seem incapable of grasping it that scientists don’t shy from this subject based on portals or shape shifting. They find it laughable a creature like Sasquatch still exists on earth let alone N. America!!! Full stop!

 

How many years have you spent in the field collecting evidence only to have it slapped back into your face!!?? Ya…. I think we get it. You will find some scorn on the BFF from researchers against science for this very reason…. 
 

I don’t like what science asks of us? But I have accepted it. Many have not. Physical evidence will end all of these debates. Unless there are other cryptids left to discovery.

 

 

 

Maybe in Anthropology, not in biology though. It would be amazing for sure, but after all it is just simply finding another species and wouldn't really elucidate any of the larger questions in these fields for us.

 

I'm not really sure why it's so hard for this community to grasp that what you all find ground breaking, others may not. And for the millionth time what you count as "collecting evidence" most scientists do not. It honestly doesn't surprise me at all that you don't like having to provide real evidence for claims that you make.

 

I would love for Sasquatch to be real and the idealist in me says she is. But I just can't take anecdotes and shaky/blurry videos as evidence. Science is successful because of the standard we hold ourselves to. That's whats separates us from pseudoscience.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

 

Maybe in Anthropology, not in biology though. It would be amazing for sure, but after all it is just simply finding another species and wouldn't really elucidate any of the larger questions in these fields for us.

 

I'm not really sure why it's so hard for this community to grasp that what you all find ground breaking, others may not. And for the millionth time what you count as "collecting evidence" most scientists do not. It honestly doesn't surprise me at all that you don't like having to provide real evidence for claims that you make.

 

I would love for Sasquatch to be real and the idealist in me says she is. But I just can't take anecdotes and shaky/blurry videos as evidence. Science is successful because of the standard we hold ourselves to. That's whats separates us from pseudoscience.


Whatever dude. It would be “amazing” is a joke. It would be the find of the century. Maybe finding an alien body would only trump it. 
 

Scientists fly halfway around the world to go look for the Bili ape. Based on anecdotal accounts and blurry pictures. Let’s face it. Sasquatch does NOT fit their narrative. They find the whole notion ridiculous. But Africa is teeming with extant species of apes….. So let’s go spend time and money there.

 

And researchers don’t want to harm the animal. Science demands physical evidence. The cheap reliable way to get that is with a bullet. Most will not go down that path. So they keep collecting hair and scat samples and pouring casts…..

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, norseman said:


Whatever dude. It would be “amazing” is a joke. It would be the find of the century. Maybe finding an alien body would only trump it. 
 

Scientists fly halfway around the world to go look for the Bili ape. Based on anecdotal accounts and blurry pictures. Let’s face it. Sasquatch does NOT fit their narrative. They find the whole notion ridiculous. But Africa is teeming with extant species of apes….. So let’s go spend time and money there.

 

And researchers don’t want to harm the animal. Science demands physical evidence. The cheap reliable way to get that is with a bullet. Most will not go down that path. So they keep collecting hair and scat samples and pouring casts…..

 

I think you're vastly overestimating its significance but whatever.

 

Lol what narrative is that?

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MonkeMan said:

I'm not really sure where this narrative that the PG film is this "ironclad evidence that science refuses to acknowledge!!1!"  comes from. As it's validity has not been proven either way

 

A curious statement that. It would be easy enough for a forensic osteologist, or one versed in Human body metrics, to use a reference of a 6' tall Patty as a way to determine her height/shoulder width ratio. Normal 6' tall Human males have an average 18.6 inch shoulder span. Patty, at that same 6' tall height, demonstrates a shoulder span of 28+ inches. Given that her shoulder joints look normal as they swing as does her elbow locations, it should cause at least one scientist in either of those mentioned disciplines to sit up and take notice. If any have in this current day and age I haven't heard about it. 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

A curious statement that. It would be easy enough for a forensic osteologist, or one versed in Human body metrics, to use a reference of a 6' tall Patty as a way to determine her height/shoulder width ratio. Normal 6' tall Human males have an average 18.6 inch shoulder span. Patty at at that same 6' tall height demonstrates a shoulder span of 28+ inches. Given that her shoulder joints look normal as they swing as does her elbow locations, it should cause at least one scientist in either of those mentioned disciplines to sit up and take notice. If any have in this current day and age I haven't heard about it. 

 

How would that prove it wasn't a guy in a costume?

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...