Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Slowvehicle]

I'm sure, but what paleontologist is going to announce he found fossilized bigfoot bones?

Any paleontologist who found fossils from a previously undiscovered giant north american primate would step on his partner and knock over his grandmother to get to a place where he could trumpet his discovery to the world.

 

[Jodie]

Any paleontologist who found fossils from a previously undiscovered giant north american primate would step on his partner and knock over his grandmother to get to a place where he could trumpet his discovery to the world.

LOLOL....I think I'ld get a second opinion first.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And if the point is moot.

So when a poster tells an outright lie, such as "The reason you skeptics haven't found 'Squatch is because, like all other primates, they live in nests high in trees, and burrow underground when their eggs hatch", such a falsehood should go unchallenged?

 

[Slowvehicle]

LOLOL....I think I'ld get a second opinion first.

Which demonstrates, among other things,that you are not a paleontologist. The idea that the discovery of a previously unknown giant north american primate would be concealed, delayed, hid from the public, revealed only to those who buy the souvenir video, is laughably absurd.

How do you think a paleontologist would GET a "second opinion"? (Hint: by publishing, by broadcasting her find, by telling the world.)

 

[Dinwar]

No, I haven't, I'm saying exactly what you said earlier about there not being a consensus of how many fossilized hominid bones we actually have.

Fair enough. Do you know WHY I said it? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with the number of fossils.

I don't disagree with this, but to use the "table" argument ad nauseum doesn't do the skeptical stance any justice.

Tell that to someone who cares. I'm not a skeptic, so it's not obligatory that I help your cause.

Also, I wasn't the one going on and on about it. You may want to criticize the guilty party.

I think they use a lot of subjective data to make best educated guesses without considering what the DNA might actually indicate.

Please understand, you just said my science was guesswork. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. If you'd like, I can explain just how wrong you are. It's a fascinating story that encompasses numerous fields of science. But please stop criticizing things you do not comprehend.

This is a perfect example of a statement that is in tone perfectly polite, but in content about as polite as spitting on a person in public.

It's still guess work on relationships because of the difficulty in harvesting ancient DNA. I don't think that fact is fully appreciated.

You are so wrong it's not even funny. I seriously doubt you have any clue the complexities of actually developing a viable cladogram. I can tell you this: the addition of DNA has not made this process any easier. And there have been examples of situations where our "guesses" have been put against the DNA data and been shown to be in nearly complete agreement (some differences are to be expected; if you don't know why, I suggest you look at the math).

We're not a bunch of freaking children running around babbling to one another. Systematics is a rigorous discipline, made even more so by the advent of computers capable of dealing with the complex multivariate statistical analyses we need to run. Again, if you wish to learn more about this I will happily discuss it; that said, your criticism demonstrates a level of knowledge about the science equal to Jabba's understanding of C14 dating.

I'm thinking of how evolution might change the form over a millenia to get to something like Gigantopithecus, how would we know the ancestor if we happened to dig it up in Africa?

Morphology. In fact, quite a few different types of morphological analysis. The fact that you don't know this shows that you are in no position to criticize paleontologists. This encompasses about half the science.

 

[dafydd]

I'm sure, but what paleontologist is going to announce he found fossilized bigfoot bones?

The contingency is a remote one.

 

[Dinwar]

LOLOL....I think I'ld get a second opinion first.

How exactly do you think we work?

Paleontologists work in some of the most dangerous environments on Earth. Places that'll kill you if you're standing outside and doing nothing else. Places that have poisonous insects and reptiles. Places where flesh-eating bacteria and the like are cultivated. We use chemicals that will cause rapidly-metasticizing cancer if they get on you. It is EXTREMELY rare for us to work alone. By the time the specimen is bagged and tagged it's usually been looked at by three or four different paleontologists. That's before it gets back to the field office. Then everyone looks at it--if nothing else, it serves to help direct people as to what to look for (we know what to look for, but having an example to refresh our perception is valuable). And let's face it, half the time the rest of the field team just wants to see it. If it gets published on (not all fossils are), the reviewers and editors will see the photographs and descriptions of it. And then for something like a North American Gigantopithicus fossils, pretty much every other paleontologist on Earth will read the paper.

So by the end of publishing we're talking a half-dozen to a dozen opinions. By the end of the first month or two we're talking HUNDREDS for a high-profile fossil.

And that's just the paleontologists. Remember, we're talking an ape bone--the archaeologists would get in on this too. By law--if we suspect human remains we are required by law to call the county coroner, and if it's ancient we're required to have an archaeologist deal with it. There'll be a bit of a territory squabble, but if it's Giganto and not Homo there's not much they can do about it; still, that's a whole suite of opinions I haven't addressed here.

 

[Jodie]

Which demonstrates, among other things,that you are not a paleontologist. The idea that the discovery of a previously unknown giant north american primate would be concealed, delayed, hid from the public, revealed only to those who buy the souvenir video, is laughably absurd.

How do you think a paleontologist would GET a "second opinion"? (Hint: by publishing, by broadcasting her find, by telling the world.)

Sure it is, no argument there, but your methods of debate and the side rail paths that you chose to go down certainly are absurd.

I would ask a colleague, more than one, what they think about the find before I invested my time in publishing anything. What else would you do? Why would it be necessary to run to CNN with it at that point? I'ld want verification first.

 

[Jodie]

The contingency is a remote one.

It's not going to happen at all.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle
I would encourage you, most civilly to explain precisely what you mean by"methods of debate" (with examples) and "side paths" (again with examples). I find lying (whether for 'Squatch, Jebas, or JE), to be untenable; I find accusing someone else if lying in hopes of disguising your own lie simply cowardly.

Originally posted by Jodie
See below your inference that I suggested someone run to CNN, that is the kind of tactic used here where the credit for a statement is attributed to the wrong person to create a point. The "table" debate would be a good example of a "side path". Whatever lie you think Chris told is your opinion, I think he genuinely believes in what he says he saw.

The "run to CNN" image is your image, from your words in post #876.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9505962&postcount=876

In what world is quoting your own words form your own post, in context, misattribution to "create a point"?

In my opinion, Chris told an outright lie about the number of hiominid fossils that exist; worse, he told an outright lie that has been refuted, but is still sung rote by creationists and other anti-evolutionists; even worse, he told, and maintained, the outright lie (with moving goalposts) to try to discredit the idea that it is vanishingly unlikely that a giant primate woudl exist in viable numbers in North America without leaving any fossil evidence. I will oppose such, wherever I can.

As an aside: fossils of a previously undetected giant North American primate would be as exciting as (perhaps even more exciting than) the discovery of a new australopithecine. Of course, that presupposes that evidence for the fossils were presented...

Originally posted by Slowvehicle
Do note that a simple error is not a lie, the first time. But when a creationist trots out the "radiometric dating is not trustworthy because you can't prove that the rate of atomic decay has remained steady", and repeats it in the face of clear, unambiguous contrary evidence, it becomes pointless to try to distinguish between intentional self-deception and intentional deception. One of the purposes of JREF is "education"; one of the basics of education is learning to speak truth about empirical, objective fact.

Originally posted by Jodie]
And I see that JREF forum members are reticent to accept the truth when their approach is criticized. It isn't simply about speaking the truth about empirical data, there is more to it than that on a psychological level, I stand by my opinion.

I honestly do not understand what you are about, here. perhaps you might provide examples, rather than general allegations?

I am not sure that you would be able to name a group of people more likely to "accept the truth" than you will find here. Yes, I expect evidence for a claim of "truth"--but show me evidence andI will cheerfully learn something new. I'm not as receptive to superstition, or bald, unevidenced assertion.

Originally posted by Slowvehicle
I encourage you to read Dinwar's descriptions of the process with comprehension--"running to CNN" is not how a scientist would announce a discovery. Concealing the results of a "capture", while the body decays and evidence is irretrievably lost, while trying to sell "sneak peeks" to the gullible, is not how a scientist would treat a discovery.

Originally posted by Jodie
I didn't say this, I was responding to the comment made of running to the media. I know very well how a scientist should treat a discovery therefore I question whether the person making the original comment is aware.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9505962&postcount=876

Originally posted by Slowvehicle
I maintain that a scientist who discovered a previously-undocumented primate, of giant size, in North America (whether a living, freshly-dead, interred, or fossilized), would shout the discovery from the rooftops, rallying the troops to discover the identity and provenance of the organism.

If you found a body, yes, if you found the fossilized bones that I was referring to then no you wouldn't.

Do you honestly think that the reaction (among scientists) to fossil evidence of a previously undetected, undiscovered, and unknown giant North American primate fossil would be less than the discovery of a previously undetected, undiscovered, and unknown giant North American primate corpse? I disagree. I am of the opinion that any practical, empirical, physical evidence of the existence of a previously undetected, undiscovered, and unknown giant North American primate would be ballyhooed.

Campfire stories? Not so much...

 

[Jodie]

Which demonstrates, among other things,that you are not a paleontologist. The idea that the discovery of a previously unknown giant north american primate would be concealed, delayed, hid from the public, revealed only to those who buy the souvenir video, is laughably absurd.

How do you think a paleontologist would GET a "second opinion"? (Hint: by publishing, by broadcasting her find, by telling the world.)

Here is where the CNN comment came from, " by broadcasting her find, by telling the world", which to me is the media or CNN.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here is where the CNN comment came from, " by broadcasting her find, by telling the world", which to me is the media or CNN.

So you did originate the "CNN" comment, and I did quote you correctly?

Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

They should be skeptical until they have completely analyzed what ever they found and obtained a general consensus of agreement from their peers, until then no ballyhoo'ing should ensue. I doubt it will ever happen for the same reasons that Dinwar states.

I find it astonishing that you think that the discovery of actual, concrete, objective, empirical, physical evidence of a previously undiscovered giant North American primate would not be "ballyhooed". Is it possible that you do not understand the significance of "giant", "previously undiscovered", and North American", to say nothing of "primate".

There are currently no primates other than Homo sapiens, demonstrated to exist in North America; nor have there been for, what? 43 million years? Such a discovery would be, literally, paradigm-changing. Painting the lily with "penis pouches"; throwing perfume on the violet with "double organs"; adding another hue to the rainbow with "a monster that hurts people"--these hucksterisms subtract wonder.

Until evidence is presented, rational scepticism is proper. When the actual primate is demonstrated to exist, there will be parties in the streets of science. With ballyhoo.

 

[Dinwar]

I find it astonishing that you think that the discovery of actual, concrete, objective, empirical, physical evidence of a previously undiscovered giant North American primate would not be "ballyhooed".

I also find it rather funny that she's using my arguments to argue against it. Pretty much as soon as this paper was published EVERY paleontologist would want to see it. The discoverers would be invited to talk at any vert paleo conference. And, let's face it, my science is not without some folks with....intense...personalities.

There are currently no primates other than Homo sapiens, demonstrated to exist in North America; nor have there been for, what? 43 million years?

Something like that, yeah. It was a serious gap, at any rate; primates were absent until 15,000 years ago or so.

They should be skeptical until they have completely analyzed what ever they found and obtained a general consensus of agreement from their peers,

Yeah.....This is more evidence that you have no clue how this works. Scientists are obligated to arrive at their own conclusions based on the data; consensus science is only done by non-scientists. Obtaining a general consensus sounds nice and all, but in reality what happens is that you generally get a few camps of people arguing back and forth in every venue possible for a generation. And the rest of us sit back, look at the data, and reach our own conclusions.

Secondly, how can we form an opinion if we all have to wait for a consensus? By definition a consensus can't form without individuals taking a stand--so, in essence, the only way for your idea to be possible is for people like me to actively violate its principles (I most emphatically DO NOT believe that science is done via consensus).

 

[smartcooky]

(I most emphatically DO NOT believe that science is done via consensus).

Perhaps she is confusing "consensus" with "peer review"?

 

[LTC8K6]

No, but I get the impression it's a lost cause when the footers think they are seeing the creatures, whether they are lying or not about it, why engage?

So that others researching will see a different opinion.

To try to keep the hoax from spreading too much.

To try to stop universities/government from spending money on the hoax.

To try to prevent the profiteers from making as much money off of the hoax as they otherwise might.

To try to get the truth out there.

To try to counter the big guns of the hoax, like Jeff Meldrum.

To possibly help the deluded.

To uphold the name of this web site. Education.

 

[eerok]

Yeah.....This is more evidence that you have no clue how this works. Scientists are obligated to arrive at their own conclusions based on the data; consensus science is only done by non-scientists. Obtaining a general consensus sounds nice and all, but in reality what happens is that you generally get a few camps of people arguing back and forth in every venue possible for a generation. And the rest of us sit back, look at the data, and reach our own conclusions.

Secondly, how can we form an opinion if we all have to wait for a consensus? By definition a consensus can't form without individuals taking a stand--so, in essence, the only way for your idea to be possible is for people like me to actively violate its principles (I most emphatically DO NOT believe that science is done via consensus).

I find this very interesting. When we think about science in the abstract, we tend to gloss over what a messy business it is in practice.

 

[The Shrike]

1) I consider the lack of a single Bigfoot fossil in the Quaternary record of North America to be the most convincing evidence arguing against the existence of Bigfoot. To me, the lack of recent, non-fossilized remains is a very close second place.

2) The reason that the "table" discussion went so long was not that it's particularly relevant to a discussion of the reality of Bigfoot. It was because Chris made a false statement, was corrected on his statement, and in response he doubled-down on the falsehoods. He was wrong, shown to be wrong, and for no apparent reason other than to engage in dishonest discourse, he kept at it.

 

[Jodie]

I also find it rather funny that she's using my arguments to argue against it. Pretty much as soon as this paper was published EVERY paleontologist would want to see it. The discoverers would be invited to talk at any vert paleo conference. And, let's face it, my science is not without some folks with....intense...personalities.

I never disagreed with your arguments for no fossilized evidence in NA.

Something like that, yeah. It was a serious gap, at any rate; primates were absent until 15,000 years ago or so.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/tterms/qt/topper.htm

Has this been debunked? I live close to this area and might arrange to take a day to go check it out if it hasn't.

Yeah.....This is more evidence that you have no clue how this works. Scientists are obligated to arrive at their own conclusions based on the data; consensus science is only done by non-scientists. Obtaining a general consensus sounds nice and all, but in reality what happens is that you generally get a few camps of people arguing back and forth in every venue possible for a generation. And the rest of us sit back, look at the data, and reach our own conclusions.

If you found something recently dead that didn't fit, my first thought would be that it was artificially introduced, or ask if it is a normal variation of something already existsing, etc... questions have to be answered before you jump the gun. As for fossils, it's not likely you would find a complete skeleton of anything, so sure, you need second opinions.

Secondly, how can we form an opinion if we all have to wait for a consensus? By definition a consensus can't form without individuals taking a stand--so, in essence, the only way for your idea to be possible is for people like me to actively violate its principles (I most emphatically DO NOT believe that science is done via consensus).

Then what is peer review if not a consensus?

 

[Jodie]

Perhaps she is confusing "consensus" with "peer review"?

I might be , I just asked the question.

Just checked the definition, I know that it looks at whether you used correct processes to reach conclusions. If you pass peer review does that not mean the conclusions are correct until someone repeats what you did? In this case we are using the fresh dead animal as an example, now other than ID'ing the thing through morphology, DNA, trying to figure out where it came from, one person isn't going to dictate those conclusions.