Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Dinwar]

My position will be that we need to get better evidence because what is out there so far hasn't done the job.

To make sure I understand you correctly: You believe that bigfoot exists, and anything that doesn't prove that is merely a poor study, correct?

I'm not making a moral judgement here, or saying that your stance is wrong. I mean, if I knew that a megamammal existed in an area and an ecological survey failed to produce it I certainly would object to that study on the grounds that it was obviously incomplete. Again, I merely want to make sure I understand your position.

 

[EHocking]

To make sure I understand you correctly: You believe that bigfoot exists, and anything that doesn't prove that is merely a poor study, correct?

Well, the Syke's study obviously doesn't include DNA from the "bigfoot" that Northern Lights "saw", therefore if the Syke's study returns a result of known species - it can't disprove what Northern Lights "saw" - therefore bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

Sykes can only confirm what I already know based upon personal experiences. If he comes back with known species, that won't change the thermal sightings and other experiences I've had out in the field.

Your personal experiences are your own. They don't change anything. Fact is, human perception is flawed. It's unacceptable as scientific evidence, which leads to . . .

My position will be that we need to get better evidence because what is out there so far hasn't done the job.

Yes, you need a type specimen. Ask the folks at NAWAC to take some target practice; ask your favorite habituator to allow a qualified observer to check out their backyard pets. Ask your fellow enthusiasts who claim regular interaction with this cryptid to put up or shut up.

None of this will happen, ever. I think you know this.

 

[Northern Lights]

To make sure I understand you correctly: You believe that bigfoot exists, and anything that doesn't prove that is merely a poor study, correct?

I'm not making a moral judgement here, or saying that your stance is wrong. I mean, if I knew that a megamammal existed in an area and an ecological survey failed to produce it I certainly would object to that study on the grounds that it was obviously incomplete. Again, I merely want to make sure I understand your position.

No, not a poor study. If the science is sound, then the results speak for themselves. In Ketchum's case, it doesn't appear the science was within standards, so her results cannot be accepted. If Sykes comes back with known species and his protocols are within standards, then the evidence submitted wasn't from a sasquatch.

If an ecological survey were to study the area where I had my sightings and wasn't able to produce evidence that would meet standards, I would be disappointed, but that still wouldn't change my views. I would chalk it up to a swing and a miss. Better luck next time. It was four years between my sightings, so it's not like these guys are easy to find. And I do realize my stories are not evidence, nor are they intended to be submitted as such.

Thanks
NL

 

[Dinwar]

Okay.

Next question: What evidence would you accept as disproving your stance?

 

[Correa Neto]

When there is nowhere else to hide, I guess all the remaining proponents will be heading for the supernatural or extra terrestrial nonsense. All the fence sitters and previously-interested-but-sane will have left the venue by then, most of them, I'll warrant, when Sykes publishes.

Mike

Maybe not. Probably not... Nope, will not be like this.

There are examples of cults whose doomsday prophecies failed but the faithfull remained hands-to-hands with their prophets. Some of these cults even grew... Heck, some people still believe a centuries-old hoaxed piece of fabric actually contains the imprint of Jesus' body.

Do not also forget bigfootery has a flux of new suckers. Some drop out but new suckers come in and they are completely clueless about it, eager to swallow the same old crap.

 

[Drs_Res]

To add to your post below, I'll say that if you use the "Quote this post in a PM" link, the envelope next to the report link, that you can copy the post with all of the nested quotes intact, and you can use the noparse tag if you want to give examples of tags.

OK, I go to one of these long quotes where someone multiqouted me, trying to respond but then it goes downhill from there. I go back to check for spelling and grammar and when I start editing, it really gets scrambled. I've tried, it just bumfuzzles me.

I find that the easiest way is to simply copy the "[QUOTE="whoever you're quoting, post: 0"]" by (mouse highlight, control C); then paste it (cursor position, control V) at the beginning of a section I want to quote. When I get to the end of that section, before I start typing my response, I type in "[/quote]"; I type in my response, then start the next quoted section with "[QUOTE="whoever you're quoting, post: 0"]", which is still in the "paste" buffer.
(of course, in the above, when you actually do it, replace the { } with [ ] ).

It looks like this:

OK, I go to one of these long quotes where someone multiqouted

Actually--and I promise I am not being disagreeable--"multi-quote" is a different function, used for when you are responding to more than one post or poster. We'll talk about it in the next post, once you get this down.

me, trying to respond but then it goes downhill from there.

...Gravity works!

I go back to check for spelling and grammar and when I start editing, it really gets scrambled.

If you keep the original material inside a set of "quote-/quote" square brackets, and your posts outside, editing works just as you expect it to.

I've tried, it just bumfuzzles me.

This word made me laugh--thanks.

You will notice, when you reply to this, that all of the stuff inside the "quote-/quote" boxes (your material I am quoting) does not appear in your post.

Please feel free to respond to this post and practice the technique. Holler if you have any questions.

It is to be hoped the mods will allow this short digression...

ETA: /derail

We now return you back to the topic at hand.

 

[Jodie]

First, I see you've given a total of none examples, which you may notice is quite a bit fewer than the a lot which I expected.

All of paleontology would fit to some degree depending on the sample size used for comparison.

Second, you're arguing that paleontology is subjective because it uses math? Seriously? I guess that's why you called it "Jodie logic" and not just "logic"; using just plain "logic" results in a big ol' "DOES NOT COMPUTE".

As related to my previous statement above, I'm arguing that math is used as a tool within paleontology. The amount of evidence limits the validation of any global conclusions that could be reached via the math using the smaller sample sets available in hominid paleontology.

No. There are different definitions of species, but those definitions are used in very specific ways. In paleontology, the morphospecies concept is used. If you want to use a different definition of species while discussing paleontology then A) you need to say exactly which one, and B) you need to give a reason why that should be used in place of the accepted paleontological term. By the same token, if you were working with microbiologists and wanted them to use the morphospecies concept, you'd need to explain why they should use it instead of the definition for species they currently use.

And you don't see the problem with this? As has been said here before in other threads "species" is a concept created for organizational purposes. That organization is designed to reflect evolution, so how do different related disciplines get to use different concepts of what a species might be and come up with anything definitive? For instance: is modern man a compilospecies, composite, or a cohesion species of different hominid lines or all of the above? Based on what little reading I've done so far on what is considered a species it seems that you first decide what factors you want to look at and pick the name that best applies.

Given that you didn't know how paleontoligsts use an important word like "species", what exactly makes you think you know whether or not their conclusions are "educated guesses"? What makes you think you know how much evidence they have?

Refer to my statement above and the discussion previously in this thread about how many hominid fossils fit on a table top versus how many hominid fossils exist in comparison with the overall population through time.

It's not as though you're going to trick us into thinking you actually have a handle on this subject--we have at least one actual expert in this thread, after all--so why not just honestly say you don't know the subject very well, and then stop making any kind of claims about it? As another poster put it, you need to stop digging this hole you're in.

The self declared expert goes by Dinwar, this is my first encounter with him and I have no idea who he really is, nor do I really care at this point. Why would I consider a self declared ecopaleontologist an expert in hominid paleontology which is what this discussion is about? I don't consider myself to be in a hole or incorrect in my perceptions, if you find my arguments tricky then perhaps I have a valid point of view for someone who has never claimed to be an expert. You do not need to be an expert to have an opinion in this particular discussion.

I was responding to the idea that forensic analysis of a bone's structure couldn't be done on fossils.

As for what to do when you only have one example of a species, for starters not everything has to be learned by comparison. If you find a critter with sharp teeth, you don't need to compare it to another member of the same species in order to work out that it probably ate meat. For stuff that does need to be compared, they probably look at the closest thing they can find ("close" as in similarities, not geographical proximity) and work from there.

Then that would be a best educated guess.

Of course, if you're asking how to determine if you're actually looking at a new species given that you have only one specimen, the answer is "because if you'd seen it before you'd have other specimens".

Well that's certainly another example of an assumption based on a best educated guess isn't it?

 

[Jodie]

We now return you back to the topic at hand.

Thanks, so far I'm not having any trouble with Ray's instructions.

 

[GT/CS]

Who is Ray?

 

[Resume]

Who is Ray?

Well, you can call him Ray . . .

 

[Akri]

All of paleontology would fit to some degree depending on the sample size used for comparison.

Great. So you should have absolutely no trouble picking out several specific examples to demonstrate this subjectivity.

As related to my previous statement above, I'm arguing that math is used as a tool within paleontology. The amount of evidence limits the validation of any global conclusions that could be reached via the math using the smaller sample sets available in hominid paleontology.

First, what you've written here does not in any way lead to the conclusion that there is subjectivity involved.

Second, do you know what sample size is needed to draw valid conclusions in paleontology? If so, where did you get that number from?

And you don't see the problem with this?

No, because I understand what's going on. You do not. I suggest you look up the word "jargon" and go from there.

Based on what little reading I've done so far on what is considered a species it seems that you first decide what factors you want to look at and pick the name that best applies.

I've hilited the two problem words.

Refer to my statement above and the discussion previously in this thread about how many hominid fossils fit on a table top versus how many hominid fossils exist in comparison with the overall population through time.

Yeah, your statements so far in this thread put you squarely in the "does not know enough to make educated judgements" category.

The self declared expert goes by Dinwar, this is my first encounter with him and I have no idea who he really is, nor do I really care at this point.

I do know who he really is, and his expertise is genuine. Of course, you don't need to take anyone's word for that. Look at the things he says, and compare them to information found in any reputable source on the subject. You will find that they match, because Dinwar knows what he's talking about.

Why would I consider a self declared ecopaleontologist an expert in hominid paleontology which is what this discussion is about?

The "paleontology" part is the expertise you need to pay attention to, because you're making errors about ALL of paleontology, not any one subset.

I don't consider myself to be in a hole or incorrect in my perceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

if you find my arguments tricky then perhaps I have a valid point of view for someone who has never claimed to be an expert.

Your arguments aren't tricky. They're just wrong.

Then that would be a best educated guess.

In the same way that it's an educated guess for a doctor to conclude that a patient with chest pains and a numb left arm is suffering from a heart attack, yes.

Well that's certainly another example of an assumption based on a best educated guess isn't it?

How? If a species has never been seen before, how is it an assumption or a guess to say that it's a new species? If it wasn't a new discovery it would have been discovered before. It's tautological.

 

[Vortigern99]

Jodie's uninformed opinions are the same old arguments from incredulity and ignorance we see in every paranormal and religious thread on this site.

"I don't know enough about field of study X to understand how its trained professionals arrive at their conclusions, therefore I don't believe them."

Ignore all attempts at enlightenment and edification, and repeat mantra ad nauseam as if no rebuttal has been offered.

 

[dafydd]

No, not a poor study. If the science is sound, then the results speak for themselves. In Ketchum's case, it doesn't appear the science was within standards, so her results cannot be accepted. If Sykes comes back with known species and his protocols are within standards, then the evidence submitted wasn't from a sasquatch.

If an ecological survey were to study the area where I had my sightings and wasn't able to produce evidence that would meet standards, I would be disappointed, but that still wouldn't change my views. I would chalk it up to a swing and a miss. Better luck next time. It was four years between my sightings, so it's not like these guys are easy to find. And I do realize my stories are not evidence, nor are they intended to be submitted as such.

Thanks
NL

Have you ordered Dyer's Bigfoot DVD?

 

[Resume]

Yeah, there are many footers playing the spiritual/supernatural card to help explain why no one can get any real evidence of the big hairy. Bigfoot can shape-shift, they can appear and disappear at will, they are from another dimension, they can read minds (and put their thoughts in our minds), and so on. The BFF forums are loaded with these types, it's interesting to check it out once in a while for fun.

Okay, so I went and read (as much as I could take) the "Psychic Sasquatch" thread over at BFF. The gist is that these folks think it's a fine idea to explain away the lack of evidence for an imaginary creature with a phenomenon for which there is no evidence.

Do they understand how curbstone thick that is? Or is it more likely that this is just more in-group fairy tale creation?

 

[MikeG]

I was recently banned some 12 months after I quit the place, without having revisited in the interim. This led me to think that TPTB over there were losing the plot. It seems, though, from this report and others, that the membership are almost as crazy as the leadership, using one impossible bit of nonsense to try to explain away the continued lack of evidence. Given that this thread is about the latest BF evidence, is there any sign of any over there?

Mike

 

[dmaker]

^^ Depending on who you talk with, there is an ever growing mountain of evidence for Bigfoot. So large that only lazy, incompetent, taboo wary scientists would ignore it. Of course this evidence is mostly the anecdotal reports. Folks at the BFF love to talk about all the witness reports and their remarkable consistency. As if it takes a genius to connect popular media and consistency in reports. Finding Bigfoot gives you a tutorial on how to get your report into the BFRO on network television regularly. But that is all brushed aside, of course, as showing how one is not read up properly on the topic. And then one is usually summarily dismissed from the conversation.

So yeah, same old same old at the BFF I would imagine.

 

[Resume]

^^ Depending on who you talk with, there is an ever growing mountain of evidence for Bigfoot. So large that only lazy, incompetent, taboo wary scientists would ignore it. Of course this evidence is mostly the anecdotal reports. Folks at the BFF love to talk about all the witness reports and their remarkable consistency. As if it takes a genius to connect popular media and consistency in reports. Finding Bigfoot gives you a tutorial on how to get your report into the BFRO on network television regularly. But that is all brushed aside, of course, as showing how one is not read up properly on the topic. And then one is usually summarily dismissed from the conversation.

So yeah, same old same old at the BFF I would imagine.

Mostly? What else do they have? PGF and footprints?

I do like the suburban Chicago footie, though I don't for a second believe that poster is an enthusiast.

 

[Drewbot]

Given that this thread is about the latest BF evidence, is there any sign of any over there?

No.

 

[carlitos]

I do like the suburban Chicago footie, though I don't for a second believe that poster is an enthusiast.

Got a link?