Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Here is something to think about regarding 10 Reasons Bigfoots a bust... Only 3% of the the United States not including Alaska is considered to be developed. If you combined that with the rural residential land the percentage jumps up to 6.1%. There is roughly 750 million acres of forest land, 35 million acres of cropland, and 790 million acres of range and pasture land that something could be hanging out in.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 That hits on a lot of the points we argue here, this one i have most recently been holding onto cause it is just fact, 10. The Case of the Missing Footprint ~ Authentic or not, footprints and other physical artifacts are meaningless scientifically, says Radford, when there is no standard to measure them by. "Some of the footprints have three toes, some have four toes, and some of course have five," he noted. "Even if I'm certain a certain track wasn't made by anything else, how do I know it's Bigfoot? You can't." The same goes for DNA. Scientists make a positive identification by comparing an unknown sample to a known one. There is no such standard for Bigfoot, says Radford. Even an educated guess about the giant footprint pictured here or a Blobsquatch gone wild is, at best, a shot in the dark. Tim
xspider1 Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 From that article and one of the reasons why "10 Reasons Why Bigfoot's A Bust" is a bust: "There's nothing to that, because Bigfoot has been reported in every state but Hawaii." Ah ha! So, if Bigfoot is all just mass hysteria and hoaxes then why are there no reports from Hawaii??
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Yeah, that list is hard to argue with. But some people, a lot of peope, have seen one. Witness unreliability is a fact, but there are just too many witnesses for there not to be a bigfoot of some kind. I cannot tell you much more, but I do know something is there, something smart. I know children who have seen one, and a college professor. I am a teacher, and I saw one. I am as sane as sane can be after it saw a bigfoot. I would never in a million years make up something like that. If I could UNsee it, I would in a heartbeat. It is a pain in the keister. We are not lying. We did not see a bear. It was not swamp gas or a big elk or a person in a costume. Period.
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Just a note to everyone here--I just posted the article because I thought it was interesting(kinda). Personally, I'm still not sure one way or the other.
BobZenor Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 His statement on DNA was surprisingly ignorant for someone that claims to be scientific. He has a BS in physiology but apparently didn't understand the genetics class or he never took it. Most of the rest of the arguments really weren't much better.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 But there really is no standard to compare too when it comes to BF, don't ya got to have one to know what one is first. Tim
Guest slimwitless Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) His statement on DNA was surprisingly ignorant for someone that claims to be scientific. He has a BS in physiology but apparently didn't understand the genetics class or he never took it. Most of the rest of the arguments really weren't much better. I agree. I can't understand why someone would think unknown hominid DNA wouldn't be a game changer. Proponents of this argument seem to want a genetic test that literally shows these things have big feet. Edited October 17, 2011 by slimwitless
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 It's interesting that a science publication could reach a definitive conclusion from a guess.
bipedalist Posted October 17, 2011 BFF Patron Posted October 17, 2011 I agree. I can't understand why someone would think unknown hominid DNA wouldn't be a game changer. Proponents of this argument seem to want a genetic test that literally shows these things have big feet. Hey, why don't we dial it back a notch. If BF dna sample can give us a paternity/gender identity per Maury Povich, maybe we can then take it to the next level. One way in which I respect the Ketchum effort is that they asked for investigation of human markers first.....a first from what I understand.
Guest slimwitless Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Don't laugh. I just listened to a podcast of "Big Picture Science" (the host is Seth Shostak from the SETI Institute). This episode was about the use of DNA as a forensic tool. Apparently recent advances allow investigators to determine eye and hair color from DNA evidence with a high degree of certainty (they still have problems with people whose hair color changes from childhood to adulthood). They can determine other identifying characteristics as well. The scientist was asked if we'll ever be able to create a "mugshot" from a drop of blood. He said it was a hard problem but he didn't think it was impossible. Edited October 17, 2011 by slimwitless
Guest Jodie Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Well I can't argue with most of the ten points. However, if people are seeing these creatures, even if some are mis-identifications or tall tales, then even that one report that is genuine makes what he said null and void. I know it exists so the only other logical conclusion would be that we are making basic assumptions about a creature that are incorrect therefore we are looking in the wrong places.
southernyahoo Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 But there really is no standard to compare too when it comes to BF, don't ya got to have one to know what one is first. Tim No, you don't , try learning how the new hominid Denisova was determined to be a "new" hominid from nothing but a tooth and a finger bone, there was no standard for Denisvoa prior to the DNA being extracted and determined to be different from the "known" hominids including humans, Neanderthal etc.
bipedalist Posted October 18, 2011 BFF Patron Posted October 18, 2011 Don't laugh. I just listened to a podcast of "Big Picture Science" (the host is Seth Shostak from the SETI Institute). This episode was about the use of DNA as a forensic tool. Apparently recent advances allow investigators to determine eye and hair color from DNA evidence with a high degree of certainty (they still have problems with people whose hair color changes from childhood to adulthood). They can determine other identifying characteristics as well. The scientist was asked if we'll ever be able to create a "mugshot" from a drop of blood. He said it was a hard problem but he didn't think it was impossible. Wow, good luck to them with a strawberry blond/redhead neandertal who is now a salt and pepper with dark black eyebrows! LOL! Science, ain't it wonderful.
Recommended Posts