View Single Post
12-05-2012, 08:50 PM
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 36,614
vCash: 0
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
What basic scientific principles are they not following?? I tell you why this is infuriating, I will ask you to back up some claim you make - usually its nothing more than a generalization - and instead I get silence, nothing, and then later you'll repeat your baseless claim again while ignoring the fact you never backed it up when asked the first time. Case in point your contention its pseudoscience that scientists are practicing, I'm STILL waiting for you to tell me who is doing this.
For the last time, I'm talking about ignoring basic population model requirements for having a sufficiently large population for mating and having enough resources to feed said population, both of which should be easily detectable and observable for a species as large as a Sasquatch. Saying that a few eyewitness accounts are valid in the face of the fact that we'd effectively be talking about a species with a likely ecological impact even greater than a moose by the very nature of its size and yet we don't have verifiable mass sightings, widespread research and recognition of the species, and even captured specimens/bodies of deceased members of the species is bluntly ignorant.

By accepting the value of eyewitness testimonies, which others have rightfully pointed out is extremely inaccurate and open for misinterpretation and hoaxing, over the obvious needs that such a species would have and in spite of our lack of actual, backable confirmation of the species is pseudoscientific, whether you like it or not, as it's ignoring the obvious needs of a species, and the detectability and observability of said needs, while promoting hearsay. In other words, it's selectively paying attention to something which is by its very nature inaccurate and ignoring measurable and observable impacts that the species would have on their environment if they existed.

Of what I was referring to up above, here is case in point - I've already explained how many labs are involved after you made the claim it was one lab just this morning!! And yet here you are again making yet another baseless claim.

So read this closely so I won't have to repeat myself again - it's FOUR labs, two private labs, a government lab and a university lab. ALL doing tests on the DNA independently of each other.
No, you're confusing yourself. She's with one lab and she said that she submitted her research blindly to other laboratories. Can she confirm that they've corroborated all her research yet? And, if so, what labs were used? What were their findings? What was their methodology? There are lots of questions that go beyond the simple number of labs here, and as the insistence on four labs versus one is, at least as of right now, based on her word and hasn't been independently admitted to by other parties as far as I'm aware. So yes, for that, I have my doubts and was therefore just talking about her lab.

Incorrect. What I don't like is you making things up and then not backing up the baseless claims you make, I also find it very insulting that you associate what I believe in with the truthers and other conspiracy theorists, how the **** is the search and study Bigfoot a god damn conspiracy theory??
First of all, I have backed up my claims. I've mentioned, multiple times, that the simple population models of such a species and ecological impact that they would have would be so large that the possibility of it somehow remaining undetected by mainstream scientific research and governmental surveying until just now is near impossible. All I'm doing is asking for proof and then showing you how your supposed proof doesn't hold water when basic scientific standards are applied to them.

And second, be upset all you want. There are people that believe things that I don't believe that are real, and per the facts we have available are very likely not real, but they'll keep believing that regardless. If the result of everything is that Ketchum is actually 100% right and everything is verified, then whoops.... I'm wrong, as is most of the scientific community. Oh well, our bad, time to remodel our understanding of primatology and especially human genetics and evolution. If Ketchum turns out to be just yet another blowhard making false claims, either intentionally or erroneously, there'll still be people that believe in Bigfoot, not because of any facts, but because they want to believe. In other words, the end result for people that believe is that their beliefs will either be validated or that the truth is somewhere still out there.

As for the comparisons, I stand by that statement. I wasn't associating you with anything, but merely a thought process that ranges from innocuous stuff, like cryptozoology and paranormal activities, to the nefarious, like belief in governmental involvement in mass murder and widespread deception. I wasn't calling it a conspiracy theory, but that the thought process behind those that believe it (which, again, is a general willingness to accept flimsy information that backs up their predetermined point of view while ignoring mountains of evidence and logic that disagree) and stuff like Bigfoot is similar.

Yeah, I am not going to hold my breath on the examples I asked for above of scientists who study Bigfoot and I'm quite sure I have a better grasp of what science is asking for in the proof of the existence of Bigfoot.

And I don't think you're sorry for the manner you dismiss peoples opinions, not for one second. I think you enjoy it.
Again, you're getting upset at me for asking for proof of something's existence while you're asking for proof that something doesn't exist. If you can't see the obvious logical disconnect here, especially as we're talking about what should be an observable natural phenomenon like a large species of wildlife in an easy to research part of the world, then I can't help you. Pardon me for being dismissive of things that are not substantiated yet claim to be scientific, pseudoscientific yet somehow effectively impossible to disprove it to people that believe.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote