You might consider holding your breath if your nose gets rubbed in it.
I will not hold my breath waiting for it.
I think it's never gonna happen.
Maybe the rapture will happen before, or that global apocalypse the woos are always warning us of... Or the alien invasion...
And I have done so by stating that only a corpse will do, not because of my own need, but for the need of those who reject all else, even decent evidence.
Excuse me, what pieces of decent evidence have been presented so far?
Once again, I will say:
Decent footage or stills from a reliable source, such as a mammalogist or wildlife photographer whose carreer and credibility would be destroyed if caught -or just being suspected of being invoved- in a fraud would be very reliable evidence.
If repeated by other (preferably independent) persons, probably even definitive.
If you don't agree, explain why.
Nope. Nor Mr. Moneymaker. Nor anyone else.
So, its OK to perform a detailed evaluation of the evidence before labelling it as reliable. Then, why do you seem not to be at ease with the idea of skeptics/scientists examing it?
Better data ain't gonna cut it. Like with you folks, they need their noses rubbed.
Prove it. Instead of just complaining about "we folks", why don't "you folks" get better evidence and try?
I think the courts might convince them to get their own data instead of leaving the entire affair to the hands of amatuers.
You folks will have to convince the courts first. It'll be fun to watch.
I, too, would say it was unlikely, except for all the reports, aboriginal beliefs, and my own trackway find.
All the above were already discussed
ad nauseaum and not enough.
Have they convinced mammalogists and wildlife photographers to carry on som work? Have they convinced wildlife management authorities?
You have no "con evidence." What you have are doubts.
Nope. What I have are requisites or characteristics that a real 3m-tall ape living at North America would ehxibit or produce.
Pretty standard ways to test hypothesis. If the "effects" predicted by the hypothesis are not present, then the hypothesis is not real.
Nope. What we need is an authority to go forward.
Why don't at least some of you folks have it?
Joe Sixpack filing suit ain't gonna cut it. It has to be someone with "standing."
Like a professor from ISU?
That's for a jury to decide.
Better get better evidence to present.
If it wasn't allowed, I wouldn't hear it.
The above statement is debatable.
But tell me, Huntster, evidence suspected of being fraudulent... Is it well received at courts?
Are you referring to Patterson and Gimlin?
I believe thier first stop was with "science."
After being insulted or ignored, yeah..........they brought it to the public.
Sure. Presenting a movie of a guy wearing a gorilla suit is an insult.
Face it: They tried to make money from it. Just like Moneymaker still does.
The subject of the film doesn't appear to be a man in a suit, because it's just too real. The motion picture industry would have been hard pressed to create such an illusion then, and the producer of the film was a rodeo rider.
First lets keep focused:
To say the "negatives were not tampered" is of no use as an argument to back the claim "PGF's subject is a real bigfoot". "Tampering" relates to double exposures, montages and collages, techniches not required to produce what's seen in the movie; techniques that would complicate a hoax attempt and be readilly detected by a photographic lab.
Do you agree or not that the "the nagatives were not tampered" line is useless? If not, state why.
The arguments you used were already touched here and elsewhere. They don't stand a detailed examination. Feel free to search older posts and remember the arguments.
I don't know if it was a "good assay" or not. If it was hair, the DNA was likely attached to the root.
It was unidentifiable. It doesn't confirm anything, but it indicates the need for further investigation.
Keep focus.
Look at the sentences below:
"We found some DNA in it, but we don’t know what it is. It's not a human, not a bear nor anything else we have so far been able to identify. "
The bolds are mine. Compare this with this piece from my earlier post:
a good assay from a good sample will return something like "unknown species or genus, but with the following information:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae (if bigfeet are related to Australipithecus, Gorilla, Homo and chimps) or Ponginae (if bigfeet are related to orang-utangs and Gigantopithecus)
They say its not human, its not bear... This means the result was good enough only to say the same came from an animal of the Mammalia class (that's the best option). Bigfeet (if they are real and Meldrum & Krantz are correct) should be at the Primates order, while bears are at the Carnivora order.
See? As "pro" evidence, its useless for all practical purposes! It can not be used to back the presence of an unknown genus of any mammal.
Its your -and everibody else's- right to defend and try to push forward the claim "bigfeet are real". But if you want to have any success with well-informed persons, you will have to make things right and give the pieces of data the relevance they really may have. Otherwise you will not be helping your own case. Honestly, the real (and worse) "enemies" of the "bigfeet are real" position are some of its very defenders. They make the skeptic's position much more confortable every single time data is misused and overhyped.
The above cited cases are "classic". They trigger the "those guys don't have a clue of what they are talking about" response in persons who know the subjects (photographic techniches and DNA).
Continue to use those lines if you want, but chances are you'll pass as ingorant people.
How about if I just propound the position that the phenomenon deserves an official investigation?
I would consider this as a much more plausible proposal.
However, you still have to defend it, with reliable data.
It all points to the need for official, funded, and controlled investigation.
See above.
