• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eugenie C. Scott Tackles Bigfoot

tyr_13 said:
That's pretty much what I was thinking. If you make the claim, that there is real evidence that will stand up to scientific standards, and you should know because you are a scientist, yet refuse to use those scientific standards, don't release the data for peer review, that's balking.

They make a claim, people say, "ok, do it," and they don't. That's balking.
Click to expand...

I dont know if you have ever been involved in the process but I'm sure some here havent so I'll just comment on your post in general terms to the masses.

A paper ( in most disciplines) is more properly referred to as the summary report. ( at least whats presented to the masses).

The reason is pretty simple- a research project can generate thousands of pages,pictures,tests, referenced articles and the like.

Few people outside of specialized research would even attempt to read such bulk.

This is what gives pseudoscience its foothold. A summary can ( and often is) selectively wordsmithed to promote a theme ( directly or indirectly) that is in line with the researchers personal views or agenda.

For example

1) literal truth- I compared an alleged BF hair to all FIVE samples i had from a dog,cat,horse,bear and deer and there was no significant match in any paramater tested with our microscopy and capability.

2) published result- I compared the suspected BF hair to our extensive database and discovered that it didnt match any samples of known mammals. The best available technology was used in this testing.

Both are "true" in a sense but 1 is greatly misleading.

On my experience as an expert witness, the FIRST thing we get under discovery is the COMPLETE research package with EVERYTHING. Then you can start hunting.

The secret to refuting or reviewing a report is not so much in refuting the summary but in discrediting the data that BUILDS the report.

If you ever notice in BF reports, thats the "missing link". They NEVER present that part.
 
Long, since we dont have hair of every mammal, bf hair will always remain unknown until a specimen is found. For all we know, the hair could have came from an unknown rat
 
makaya325 said:
Long, since we dont have hair of every mammal, bf hair will always remain unknown until a specimen is found. For all we know, the hair could have came from an unknown rat
Click to expand...

In the most broad sense, thats correct but heres another in a long list of flaws of your logic.

IF these BF were "authentic' and representive of a new species, ALL the hair would have similar characteristics within the test group. That doesnt happen either.

Bottom line, it could be from a rat but rat hair is available so test it against it and confirm/eliminate it. Thats how science works in the real world.

And make sure you define that "unknown" against ALL samples tested against so you can see just how "unknown" it really is.
 
I normally stay away from these bigfoot topics, so I'm not up-to-date with what has and hasn't already been discussed to death (most things I imagine, judging by the number of bigfoot threads). So, having read this thread without very much bigfoot background, I am really interested to see Makaya's response to Aerik's points in post #39.

Makaya, I want to hear what you have to say, because at the moment the debunkers are presenting a much more persuasive case for the non-existence of bigfoot. Why have you not addressed Aerik's points? To me, it looks like you are avoiding them because you don't have any plausible explanations. If so, it's okay to admit it. A lot of people on this forum came here with beliefs that they later re-evaluated after being confronted with evidence and good counter-arguments. If you are evading the questions for other reasons (such as believing Aerik did not address your own points sufficently), you are not doing yourself any favours, because to readers like me you appear to be trying to hide your ignorance with flimsy excuses. You won't convince anyone of bigfoot's existence that way!

So please, read Aerik's questions carefully and consider your answers. And if you can't answer, or you find yourself desperately searching your imagination for answers... please entertain the possibility that the debunkers may be on to something here.
 
How exactly did Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach apply his skills ?
What was the specific analysis of the hairs. I ask because I don't know how much has been distorted.
I am not defending his studies on this matter. But it shouldn't take
too big a step for a PHD and one that has main studies in marine biology
to learn enough about other branches in the field to study hairs.
Unless he was living in a bubble. Could be he was... I don't know.
I never paid too much attention to him before.
Did he just apply his skills with the microscope and make wild assessments?
Who really has made the big deal of it anyways. The BF groups ?
It just boils down to weakness (lack) of the subject being studied to me.
Just that I have seen too many mistruths and out of context reports
of what a reported scientist had to really offer (as in their opinion or tests).
I just get frustrated with distortion and mis-info that spews from some
sites. Not that it confuses me too much. I just know that a scientist's
inconclusive study can be twisted and taken out of context to fit certain
groups agendas. I don't know enough "yet" of the real Henner.
Enough of me blabble for today. Cannot a scientist multitask well ? :)
I personally know DVM that is well qualified to teach and give advice on
agricultural crops.
 
Py, im having trouble with the functions on here, and since we have no body, i cant fully answer his questions. Its not that i ignore them, in fact, he brings up great points to be skeptical of the existence of bigfoot. Im not saying im right or wrong, i need to do more research.
 
Ahh, the double standard of ( you guessed it) BIGFOOT Science

Dr. Scott is highly rebuked for making claims of 12 ft BF's and her other opinions but DR. Fahrenbach is applauded for the same.

I guess BF orgies, peacock diets, mammal hairs confirmed by an untrained Marine Biologist and goat totin' have more speculative credibility than hers and she is in a relevant field?

Only at Woo U.

And yes, there ARE reports of 12 ft tall BF

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/photo.htm
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
Frank, your under an assumption it has evaded us. It lives in the pnw, which is a remote region, and it does leave traces behind which you refuse to even consider.
Click to expand...

This from the guy who said:

makaya325 said:
Kitz, you are absolutely right. Did i tell you that im one in crowlogics camp, in the belief that bigfoot is extinct,
Click to expand...

Makaya325 has a hard time deciding what he wants people to think.
 
makaya325 said:
JF, sorry, life on other planets is a complete dead end.

for bigfoot, we had animals on earth that resembled it= Gigantopithecus, meganthropus robustus, neanderthal.

aliens=none, unless you count the ufo nonsense
Click to expand...

What is Meganthropus robustus? Be specific.
 
bobbieshort said:
----------------------
I am seriously confused by this rendition of Henner's bio

....13 years ago, Henner ground mailed me his thesis which was written on horseshoe crabs. His Ph.d., is in Marine Biology. He is not a zoologist....unless you count "self-made" as a legitimate post grad degree.

Secondly, he did not serve on the staff in any manner
at Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton. (they will tell you that!) ...They rented him a small room where he kept his microscope. books, files, boxed papers and hair samples etc..; all things he preferred not to keep at home. It is my understanding that Brigette had no appreciation for any thing "bigfoot," ...another reason why he worked in his little lab; he did receive ground mail regarding same at the primate center as well, but he was no primatologist and was not affiliated with the primate center.

In all the years I've known him, he never mentioned he was a Harvard grad... I think he said his doctorate was obtained in Berlin. His paper on horseshoe crabs carries the name, "W. Henner Fahrenbach." He is retired, living in Arizona, he will be 77 in April....

If his bio was listed on Squatchopedia, or whatever it's called, there is much hearsay/many errors in those uploads, which is one of the reasons why I had Brian pull mine; those were uploaded without any kind of personal interview.....fwiw.
Click to expand...

Hi, Bobbie. Thanks for stopping by and clearing things up about Fahrenbach's credentials.

Light years ahead.:rolleyes:
 
I'm seriously impressed that he could get the crabs to stay still long enough to write on them!!!

Sorry, I know it's rude to pick on someone's grammar errors, and I'll probably burn in hell for being a terrible person, but I swear I read the 1st sentence that way!:boxedin:
 
Last edited:
GT/CS said:
I'm seriously impressed that he could get the crabs to stay still long enough to write on them!!!

Sorry, I know it's rude to pick on someone's grammar errors, and I'll probably burn in hell for being a terrible person, but I swear I read the 1st sentence that way!:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Henner has crabs?:crab:
 
kitakaze said:
This from the guy who said:



Makaya325 has a hard time deciding what he wants people to think.
Click to expand...

He believes bigfoot is extinct, yet still leaving footprints and hair, and still being seen.

It's good to be woo, where everything is a logical argument for bigfoot, even the contradictions.
 
makaya325 said:
Long, since we dont have hair of every mammal, bf hair will always remain unknown until a specimen is found. For all we know, the hair could have came from an unknown rat
Click to expand...

Or a unicorn. Until we find a unicorn specimen, unicorn hair will always remain unknown.

I have a simple solution....enough with the hairs, just find a freakin' bigfoot already. As it stands now, the legitimate "in the field" researchers have found no more than so-called arm chair scientists.
 
Last edited:
makaya325 said:
JF, sorry, life on other planets is a complete dead end.

for bigfoot, we had animals on earth that resembled it= Gigantopithecus, meganthropus robustus, neanderthal.

aliens=none, unless you count the ufo nonsense
Click to expand...

And yet the very same type of evidence that you dismiss for aliens, you readily embrace when it comes to bigfoot. As far as you know, bigfoot footprints are actually alien footprints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom