The Relict Hominoid Inquiry

[Guest]

Well this skeptic hasn't. I'm not only keeping an open mind, I'm hopeful and looking forward to some progress. I don't see why they can't find, genetic-wise, an uncontaminated, retestable strand of DNA that is "new" to science and fits here and there in the tree.

Props to you then. You're light years ahead of the vast majority of the Skeptical community that I have dealt with.

[Guest]

See my friends list and intuit...... otherwise we are not at liberty of divulging that as members/staff, etc.

OH, Wow! Thanks for mentioning that.

I wouldn't see any contradiction there....do you? I don't think it applies to private land, and anyway

(e) RELINQUISHMENT.--Nothing in this section shall prevent the governing body of an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization from expressly relinquishing control over any Native American human remains, or title to or control over any funerary object, or sacred object.

Okay, I've seen Indians, never noticed body hair, I saw a BF,hair and more hair, I saw Indians:Head hair, no body hair.

How are they related? They aren't. Bigfoot is an animal, Indians are Humans, just like all of us are whatever our origin or culture.

Bigfoot is not human.

Edited January 30, 2012 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

Well this skeptic hasn't. I'm not only keeping an open mind, I'm hopeful and looking forward to some progress. I don't see why they can't find, genetic-wise, an uncontaminated, retestable strand of DNA that is "new" to science and fits here and there in the tree.

I would like to be hopeful and, after all, who really knows, maybe something will come out surprising.

But if the report is unconvincing, and the Sierra Kills story turns out to be a hoax, as well as the Erickson habituation videos, what will we have learned from all this as relating to the phenomena? Nothing? Something? What?

[Guest]

I would like to be hopeful and, after all, who really knows, maybe something will come out surprising.

But if the report is unconvincing, and the Sierra Kills story turns out to be a hoax, as well as the Erickson habituation videos, what will we have learned from all this as relating to the phenomena? Nothing? Something? What?

Well, for me, I've learned nothing new. I operate under the null hypothesis which equates to, so far, Bigfoot does not exist. So if everything turns out to be unconvincing and the Sierra Kills story turns out to be a hoax, then I've learned that, as I've always asserted, Bigfoot as far as we know is not real. Squatch does not exist. Full circle and back to square one.

I want to be wrong. I want BF to be real. But as I have not seen one and have not been presented with enough compelling evidence to proves, to me, that BF is real, I have an intellectual responsibility to assume that BF is not real.

KIR

Keep It Real

I won't find randomly fallen tree branches to be BF markings or bedding. I will not find blob-squatches to be proof or evidence. I will not accept dubious pictures or video as proof. I will not accept eyewitness stories as proof - but rather as possible anecdotal evidence that hover precariously on the edge of folklore, misidentification, hoaxes or myriad of other explanations.

So for me, BF does not exist. BF may exist and has which would be irrelevant to whether or not I believe in them. But, then, a hundred years ago, the mountain gorilla did not exist to the modern world, despite stories to the contrary, until proven.

So why would BF be any different?

Proof.

Proof.

Proof.

[Guest]

Well, for me, I've learned nothing new. I operate under the null hypothesis which equates to, so far, Bigfoot does not exist. So if everything turns out to be unconvincing and the Sierra Kills story turns out to be a hoax, then I've learned that, as I've always asserted, Bigfoot as far as we know is not real. Squatch does not exist. Full circle and back to square one.

I want to be wrong. I want BF to be real. But as I have not seen one and have not been presented with enough compelling evidence to proves, to me, that BF is real, I have an intellectual responsibility to assume that BF is not real.

KIR

Keep It Real

I won't find randomly fallen tree branches to be BF markings or bedding. I will not find blob-squatches to be proof or evidence. I will not accept dubious pictures or video as proof. I will not accept eyewitness stories as proof - but rather as possible anecdotal evidence that hover precariously on the edge of folklore, misidentification, hoaxes or myriad of other explanations.

So for me, BF does not exist. BF may exist and has which would be irrelevant to whether or not I believe in them. But, then, a hundred years ago, the mountain gorilla did not exist to the modern world, despite stories to the contrary, until proven.

So why would BF be any different?

Proof.

Proof.

Proof.

Well said, and I'm of a similar position . Guess we will have to wait and see what shakes loose.

[Guest]

Really. This is new to me. First, Neanderthal is not a missing link but a cousin so to speak. What is your source for the idea that the Neanderthal never existed. We have many bones fossils plus a complete genome. Are you saying their is some kind of conspiracy to make people to believe in Neanderthal to discredit something else. What ever source you are using for your conclusions is not very accurate and full of many errors.

I'm seriously thinking that BF will be discovered to have already been discovered and considered extinct.

I believe their bones are in museums cataloged as something else or unknown.

I can't wait to see how wrong or how right I may be regarding this issue.

[Guest]

Well, for me, I've learned nothing new. I operate under the null hypothesis which equates to, so far, Bigfoot does not exist.

Not proven =/= "does not exist".

I want to be wrong. I want BF to be real. But as I have not seen one and have not been presented with enough compelling evidence to proves, to me, that BF is real, I have an intellectual responsibility to assume that BF is not real.

No you have an intellectual responsibility to maintain an open position and seek more evidence.

So for me, BF does not exist. BF may exist and has which would be irrelevant to whether or not I believe in them. But, then, a hundred years ago, the mountain gorilla did not exist to the modern world, despite stories to the contrary, until proven.

So why would BF be any different?

Proof.

Proof.

Proof.

That is so far from a defendable position that it's not even funny. Existence does not come from "proof". The mountain gorilla did not spring from the forehead of Western Science like Athena from the brow of Zeus. It was always there. The natives knew it, and told scientists about it, but in their intellectual rigidity, they rejected anything they did not personally experience.

[Guest]

"Intellectual rigity" is simply another term for "We need proof", and you know it. Proof proof proof. What part of that are you not understanding? Let us not continue to go around in circles.

Show me the money......

[Guest MikeG]

I'm seriously thinking that BF will be discovered to have already been discovered and considered extinct. I believe their bones are in museums cataloged as something else or unknown.

I'd be amazed if this isn't true. I'll bet that one of the side effects of the publication of the Ketchum report will be a scrambling through old drawers of stuff in museums all over the world, looking for items to recatalogue, or send of for testing.

Mike

[Guest]

"Intellectual rigity" is simply another term for "We need proof", and you know it. Proof proof proof.

Complete and utter BS. You know as well as I do that institutional science in the West defines "proof" so narrowly that it amounts to "If I don't see it with my own eyes or from my own data it's not true."

It's the old analogy that I always draw:

You can have a coffee maker in the kitchen, coffee grounds in the trash, a dirty coffee cup in the sink, and drops of coffee all over the tablecloth and western institutional science would STILL deny there was ever a cup of coffee there unless they themselves saw it being drunk.

What part of that are you not understanding?

None of it. I understand quite well...that's your problem.

Let us not continue to go around in circles.

Indeed...just admit the truth: BF's existance is not contingent on "acceptance by science" or "proof". Just as you can deny the existence of gravity until the end of the universe if you want, but if you jump off a cliff you will fall, so it is with the reality of BF.

I'd be amazed if this isn't true. I'll bet that one of the side effects of the publication of the Ketchum report will be a scrambling through old drawers of stuff in museums all over the world, looking for items to recatalogue, or send of for testing.

Mike

Actually, I rather doubt this will happen. I expect that most will go "ok...that settles that" and move on. BF has such a poor public image that even with proof in hand, most scientists will not want to touch the matter with the proverbial 10 meter cattle prod.

[Guest]

Mulder, in my opinion this is all endless rehash. The scientific method, however flawed, is the best one we have. I get it. I get it already. You think they're institutionally too narrow minded. Pretty sure everyone on this board knows you feel that way.

I'm skeptical of BF's existence but I am truly looking forward to the results of the DNA samples and will study them with an open mind, not a closed one. I do not pretend to speak for science or even other skeptics.

To the people who have clearly seen BF, maybe in daylight not far away - saw the whites of their eyes etc...they operate under the assumption that, based on their sighting, BF is real and the rest of the world just doesn't know it yet.

That's a perfectly sound way to see things in my opinion.

Me, having not seen one, and having studied all the same stuff everyone here has for years, have come to the conclusion that there is not enough evidence to conclude BF exist, for me.

Why this angers you when I write this I'm not sure, as I am not in the scientific community you rail so hard against.

I want BF to be real and have an open mind to new evidence. Why is that not apparently good enough for you?

[Guest]

I think science will take a good look depending on what Ketchum comes up with Mulder. I think some of them pay more attention already, than they care to admit. I think the "business" end of Bigfoot will be disappointed when and if this occurs. I know a couple scientist that are interested now, on a personal level,and are very respected in their own realm. They do not openly participate because they have zero interest in being connected with internet forums on the subject,as a matter of fact I take a certain amount of ribbing over it. I am not a scientist, but I do fish with a few,and share some hobbies with a few, and they do not have closed minds about it. As a matter of fact we have many discussions about it, and I often bring up stuff I have read here,and on a few other forums. Sometimes they have a good chuckle,other times it turns into a lengthy discussion.Interestingly, they do agree on one thing, a body is not required as "proof", just a body of evidence,and that is why they are genuinely interested in what Ketchum comes out with.

[Guest]

Actually Mulder has this right

Quote

''Indeed...just admit the truth: BF's existance is not contingent on "acceptance by science" or "proof". Just as you can deny the existence of gravity until the end of the universe if you want, but if you jump off a cliff you will fall, so it is with the reality of BF.''

Anyone is free to be as decerning as they choose, however in all reality it's about time someone doubting their existance just marches out into the woods and tells them they don't exist. Yes a lot of evidence presented here isn't going to stand the scrutiny of ''hard science'' however this also isn't a research site and the evidence doesn't have too. It isn't being presented for usually anything more than a friendly discussion.

Educational purposes if you will.

Yes the Forum takes a '' Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'' stance but that is only one small phrase in a larger body of the ''mission statement''. It also says the forum takes no official position on BF existance and this is not the ''anti-bf forum''. The forum is here to provide a place to DISCUSS BIGFOOT. Nothing more and nothing less.

The false dichotomy of skeps and pro's is just that....the skeps are never going to change the purpose of the forum, equally the pro's are never going to crash the site with their opinion.

The hilarious thing is in North America Bigfoot wasn't decried as a myth/impossibility till after columbus. From eastern europe to asia it's taken as a matter of course, as it was here before the eastern european migration. It's only in recent times the notion BF isn't real popped up. I'd say maybe due to disease they died out in western europe and ''we forgot'' about them, then transfered that to North America.

Regardless...we most definately have something running around out there and saying it doesn't despite the tracks and recorded vocals or even annocdotal evidence is ludicrous. So I 'd say again....if someone doesn't have enough proof to suit their personal criteria go hook up with a research group and go get what you need. Respectfully, The rest of us did

[Guest]

I've been in the woods countless hours both by myself and with others, using various techniques and in three different states. I've read eight books on BF starting with Krantz'. I've studied my evidence and others as well. I' like most here, have read almost everything about BF on the net that there is.

I have done my due diligence and reached my conclusion. Bigfoot does not exist.

I am open minded however and would like nothing better than to be wrong.

[Guest MikeG]

Complete and utter BS. You know as well as I do that institutional science in the West defines "proof" so narrowly that it amounts to "If I don't see it with my own eyes or from my own data it's not true."

It's the old analogy that I always draw:

You can have a coffee maker in the kitchen, coffee grounds in the trash, a dirty coffee cup in the sink, and drops of coffee all over the tablecloth and western institutional science would STILL deny there was ever a cup of coffee there unless they themselves saw it being drunk.

I'm new here, and I've heard a whisper that Dr Meldrum is a member here. I harboured a sneaky little suspicion that it might have been you, as your name is almost an anagram, but I think I can safely say now that I was completely and utterly wrong!!!

Your parody of science is, forgive me, slightly misleading. They don't say "if it isn't in our data it isn't true". They don't say that at all. That would display a supreme and indefensible arrogance. No, the real position is much more like "If it isn't in our data then we haven't got around to it just yet........we'll have a look at it in the end". Science is, as I see it, completely neutral about stuff it hasn't looked at properly, so long as it doesn't fall outside the fundamentals.

And, a bit like democracy........to paraphrase Churchill......science may be a bad system, but it's the least bad system we've got.

I've been in the woods countless hours both by myself and with others, using various techniques and in three different states. I've read eight books on BF starting with Krantz'. I've studied my evidence and others as well. I' like most here, have read almost everything about BF on the net that there is.

I have done my due diligence and reached my conclusion. Bigfoot does not exist.

I am open minded however and would like nothing better than to be wrong.

Sir Ronald Ross dissected mosquitoes for 15 years, doing virtually nothing else, before finally finding one which carried the malarial parasite. If he'd have given up after 14 years, the cause of fighting malaria would have been set back by decades. Sometimes you have to look, and look, and look again, obsessively, before you find what you are looking for. Remember, too, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mike

Edited January 31, 2012 by MikeG