Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Correction, no Skeptic has ever admitted that evidence has met the challenge. We have good scientific evidence going back to the 1970s, such as Tom Moore of Wyoming Fish and Game's forensic hair analysis, and moving forward to Chillcutt's dermal findings, Fahrenbach's statistical studies, etc. Seems to be a lack of a dead or live specimen, but ! i know it's getting close and we should all just wait a little longer, we can spend that time listening to the experts tell us about their thoughts and conclusions. Tim
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Seems to be a lack of a dead or live specimen, but ! i know it's getting close and we should all just wait a little longer, we can spend that time listening to the experts tell us about their thoughts and conclusions. Tim A dead or live specimen is not the only evidence for the existence of an animal. If you walked into my home, you would find all kinds of evidence that cats live here, without ever having to see them. A specimen would certainly prove the existence of bigfoot in the woods and cats in my home, but â€proof†and â€evidence†are two different things. It is a fact that there is actual physical evidence which suggest the existence of Bigfoot could be possible. No proof yet though; hopefully soon!
Guest RayG Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 If you walked into my home, you would find all kinds of evidence that cats live here, without ever having to see them. But I don't need to walk into your home to know that cats exist. Showing me catnip, a toy mouse, a box of kitty litter, and some cat food, is a far cry from showing me a cat. Those items are easily obtainable by anyone, whether they have a cat or not. ...â€proof†and â€evidence†are two different things. Doesn't seem to matter. So far not a single piece of bigfoot evidence has been matched to an actual bigfoot. RayG
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 4, 2011 Well it looks like maybe there is more than nothing on two counts at least(sticking with the OP here).
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 A more human bigfoot would not be a recent innovation ..From the point of view of Native American traditions the "ape" thing is just a blip on the screen of it's ongoing history... For some crazy reason an older song named MacArthur Park keeps singing in my head in regards to BF. The part where it goes: "MacArthur Park is melting in the rain, and the sweet cream icing's running down, and I'll never have that recipe again, Oh No.. I think my psyche is telling me that if this does not come through our cake(BF revelation) can never be remade.. Yikes, That's possibly true.If does not result in BF being confirmed as a species, then we believers have all lost and this can never be remade again..Oh No! I agree and know full hand many of the stories that tell of a more human type creature, my dig is that there is a heavy investment on BF being a big monkey, take the PGF Film, the Skookum Cast, The Jacobs pictures, Meldrum's foot prints, Etc, all geared towards it being a monkey, what's going to happen if the DNA comes back more human or let's just say even Neanderthal like, are there going to be Two Bigfoot's ? Neanderthal man did not die out. They are still here hiding in the woods and we today call them Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Scientists and history books are not always correct. My dad told me we have BF here in our museums and have not recognized what we have in storage in our museums.The bones found that we today call Neanderthal Man could in fact be Bigfoot bones.
Guest Jodie Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 I don't believe that the study can't be replicated, Susie. It may not work out now for whatever reason this time around, as far as finding definitive proof. However, technology keeps improving and if someone wanted to recreate the study with a bigger budget I think it can be done. Nothing ever gets accomplished by quitting after the first time around, perseverance is one of the key ingredients to success.
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) Melba Ketchum actually did say this today: For all of the people speculating on the Erickson project, Adrian and I have agreed to set aside the NDA to tell you that his group is a successful participant in this project. His research project to obtain the DNA samples is separate from us. His samples will be in the paper along with all of the successful submitters. And, yes, his great footage will come out so lets let all of the rumors go, OK? And once again, please know that we are at the mercy of the journal as to when we can announce. Thanks! Edited December 4, 2011 by SweetSusiq
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 4, 2011 Do we really need a separate thread for this (it is old info.) as it pertains to about four current threads? Thanks for the posting reminder of this but it has been posted up before Susieq2. The thread is also misleading in that it says (TODAY)???????
Guest Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) I hope this new topic is okay. I posted something old accidentally but this is new news. Edited December 4, 2011 by SweetSusiq
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 4, 2011 Melba's FB page is still up and running, and this thread is still repetitive and out of date......mods can take care of it, thanks.
Guest Jodie Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 Susie, you are confusing me, I thought you posted the article link from Dr. Ketchum's FB page on peer review........
bipedalist Posted December 4, 2011 BFF Patron Posted December 4, 2011 Yes, it was from July 16 and had been discussed here in at least one thread, prob. two. She listed it as being from today, thus the confusion. And now we have the changed post on Ketchum's statement she made last night again that we have in two other threads? Geesh........ Anybody want to talk about prehistoric courtship rituals in possums?
Guest Cervelo Posted December 4, 2011 Posted December 4, 2011 (edited) Depending on how its received will impact consideration by mainstream science. If it gets panned no organization is going to fund a study. The hope would be that it generates enough interest that maybe some money will be put towards a "serious" study but who or what organization is going to take that risk in this economic climate much less having to be lumped in with current crop of media research. After so many years and the subject not being picked up its unlikely this will push it over the edge IMO. We must remember that most science is done with grant money, someone elses money, the risk/reward is way to heavy on the risk side. But we shall see... Edited December 4, 2011 by Cervelo
Recommended Posts