HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Sciences
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Sciences A place to discuss natural, applied & social sciences, along with any other academically-oriented topics of interest to membership.

DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2012, 05:41 PM
  #51
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Well I don't know about Bigfoot but it looks like our friends in North Korea has just confirmed the existence of Unicorns!

Link




...maybe this should be in the lounge?
Doesn't mean it's for a Unicorn.

Sun Jian referred to himself as the Tiger of Jiang Dong and called his place "The Tiger's Liar"

Could have been some not very tough soldier's place...

Analyzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2012, 07:14 PM
  #52
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
Who says there's a viable breeding population? If anything, bigfoot would likely fall into the endangered or critically endangered realm. It took until 2009 to get video footage of the Cross River gorilla.
There had to have been a viable breeding population sometime in the recent past at the very least, or else it would have gone extinct. Large, long-lived animals with large ranges require a certain number of individuals to stop the population from dying out. Unlike the Cross River gorilla, Bigfoot is purported to be present over a large range. Also unlike the Cross River gorilla, which is a subspecies of the western gorilla, Bigfoot would be a distinct taxonomic group, quite separated from anything endemic to North America, meaning that there's no adjacent population to ease the generic bottleneck caused by low population levels.

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:50 AM
  #53
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
My question is; if the male is an ancestor of unknown origin, how far removed is it from homo sapiens to produce a viable offspring?

I mean I don't think Foxes and Dogs can get it on and produce a viable off spring can it? (Or I haven't seen one). But Dogs and Wolves? Sure.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 03:24 AM
  #54
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
My question is; if the male is an ancestor of unknown origin, how far removed is it from homo sapiens to produce a viable offspring?

I mean I don't think Foxes and Dogs can get it on and produce a viable off spring can it? (Or I haven't seen one). But Dogs and Wolves? Sure.
Homo sapiens could interbreed with other human species (eg. Homo neanderthalensis), but nothing that's alive today. Mating with something that closely related to humans wouldn't produce a creature as morphologically distinct as Bigfoot apparently is.


Last edited by Canucks5551: 12-02-2012 at 03:34 AM.
Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 03:29 AM
  #55
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucks5551 View Post
Homo sapiens could interbreed with other human species (e. Homo neanderthalensis), but nothing that's alive today. Mating with something that closely related to humans wouldn't produce a creature as morphologically distinct as Bigfoot apparently is.
That's what I was thinking.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 01:23 PM
  #56
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,956
vCash: 1
Not sure, but I will admit that the idea of humanzees creeped the **** out of me the first time I heard about the concept.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 02:58 PM
  #57
xX Hot Fuss
Registered User
 
xX Hot Fuss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 11,136
vCash: 500
I had a sacrastic post all lined up and ready to go. Then i got hungry, made some lunch, and watched "Spanish Fry"..the Futurama episode semi-about Big Foot. So in a much less sacrastic way...

1) Ronnie Bass claims that we dont have "open minds" but whenever people present legitimate counter-arguments it seems like his only response is "you guys are just closed minded!" instead of appreciating the logic and science behind our arguments

2) A 2 hour lecture in my biology class (5 days ago ironically) almost completely disproves, or severley limits the logical possibility, of bigfoot existing. It really is just simple population ecology at work here. Bigfoot is widely regarded as an 8-10ft ape like creature that walks upright and lives in heavily wooded areas.

In order for a species to survive it has to have fitness (ability to reproduce and prolong its genetic material in future generations). If there was ever an animal with such notorious low fitness, its bigfoot. SA creature as (hypothetically) large as Big Foot that specifically lives (hypothetically) in the North American Northwest simply cannot exist mainly for this reason. The Northwest is too populated, even in its more remote areas.

We know the relative population of tigers remaining on the entire planet. Tigers, incredibly solitary, elusive, and large i.e. need a lot of territory and food, creatures. We have been able to find footage of snow leopards in the middle eastern mountains, one of the least seen animals on our planet in one the least accessible places. There is no reason for me to logically believe that a 10 foot human-ape would have gone this long without sitings of any sort. The tracks, hair samples, dung samples, are too rare and are dripping with skepticism.

TL, DR version: Ignoring the biological impossiblity of an ape mating with a human and producing offspring, The territory needed for such a large creature and the amount of food it would need to consume in order to have high fitness is simply too demanding for a creature like Big Foot to not have been filmed, captured, killed, or studied.

xX Hot Fuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 03:23 PM
  #58
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
My question is; if the male is an ancestor of unknown origin, how far removed is it from homo sapiens to produce a viable offspring?

I mean I don't think Foxes and Dogs can get it on and produce a viable off spring can it? (Or I haven't seen one). But Dogs and Wolves? Sure.
Almost all members (two species of jackal cannot) of the genus Canis can hybridize and produce fertile offspring: wolves, coyotes, dogs, dingoes, and jackals

TasteofFlames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 04:35 PM
  #59
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Not sure, but I will admit that the idea of humanzees creeped the **** out of me the first time I heard about the concept.
Even if humanzees are possible, the offspring would be sterile due to the differing number of chromosomes. I'll admit that I'm kind of curious to know if they are possible

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 04:45 PM
  #60
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,956
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucks5551 View Post
Even if humanzees are possible, the offspring would be sterile due to the differing number of chromosomes. I'll admit that I'm kind of curious to know if they are possible
I know, but considering it was from some documentary show that mentioned how the earlier attempts at it were in the guise of psychological torture of Jewish women during the Holocaust by Nazis telling them that they had been artificially inseminated with chimpanzee semen and a purported Soviet mad scientist that created one in a test tube before letting it die added significantly to the creepiness factor.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2012, 09:07 PM
  #61
crump
~ ~ (ړײ) ~ ~
 
crump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ontariariario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,284
vCash: 671
Heard about the humanzee story. Apparently scientists created a Human zee in the 1920's at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Orange Park, Florida. It either didn't live too long or was euthanized.

Picture purporting to be said cHIMp...


Creepy, but has nothing to do with Bigfoot for reasons already stated.

As for the research into the DNA, I am not holding my breath that it will turn up anything but negative. I am fascinated by Bigfoot, the sheer number of reports on the bfro website, and why nobody has ever found even a dead one. Mass hysteria? I have spoken with intelligent, lucid people who claim to have seen one. They are positive and have a resolve I have never been able to shake through years of questioning.


(Please disregard my avatar, it holds no bearing on my beliefs in this area.)

crump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 01:28 PM
  #62
SomeDude
Registered User
 
SomeDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsburghish
Posts: 5,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
I'm from a family of scientist.
And I come from a couple generations of electricians. My knowledge of electricity begins with screwing in a light bulb and ends with plugging something into the wall.

SomeDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 01:40 PM
  #63
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeDude View Post
And I come from a couple generations of electricians. My knowledge of electricity begins with screwing in a light bulb and ends with plugging something into the wall.
Whats your point besides taking a shot at me like everyone else in here? I believe in the big guy, why is that such a terrible thing?

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 01:51 PM
  #64
SomeDude
Registered User
 
SomeDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pittsburghish
Posts: 5,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
Whats your point besides taking a shot at me like everyone else in here? I believe in the big guy, why is that such a terrible thing?
My point is just because your relatives are qualified in an area, it doesn't mean you are, as the tone of your post suggested.

There's nothing wrong with anything you believe, but when you lecture people about being close minded and ignore everything they say, it is pretty hypocritical.

I love stuff like bigfoot and UFOs and was a hardcore believer when I was young, but one thing that turned me off was people who instead of debating the strong evidence against these things existing, just doing essentially what you did and say "theres no point, you'll never believe." It sounds more like a child arguing with someone about the existence of Santa Claus than a real scientific debate.

SomeDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 02:06 PM
  #65
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeDude View Post
My point is just because your relatives are qualified in an area, it doesn't mean you are, as the tone of your post suggested.

There's nothing wrong with anything you believe, but when you lecture people about being close minded and ignore everything they say, it is pretty hypocritical.

I love stuff like bigfoot and UFOs and was a hardcore believer when I was young, but one thing that turned me off was people who instead of debating the strong evidence against these things existing, just doing essentially what you did and say "theres no point, you'll never believe." It sounds more like a child arguing with someone about the existence of Santa Claus than a real scientific debate.
Ahhhh more shots taken at me, thanks man. But try reading what I wrote again and show where I ever said I was qualified in ANY area, rereading it you might see my point was I understand how science works. But thanks for twisting my words out of context.

And when people say nothing you can show me will change my mind, is that NOT being close minded? People think they are skeptics, but they are more cynical than they realize.

And there is nothing more I would love to do than get into scientific debate on if this creature exists and do believe there are true skeptics who would like to do that as well.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 02:22 PM
  #66
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
But I do agree I need to get off what other people think and instead focusing on the science, so point taken there. I have almost a decades worth of investment on this and yes I am part of the Bigfoot community, so I have butted heads with those that don't believe and rarely do they end well, would like to avoid that here.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 02:56 PM
  #67
Richer's Ghost
Global Moderator
sharp angle try
 
Richer's Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: photoshop labor camp
Country: United States
Posts: 49,029
vCash: 160
Not that I add anything relevant to the discussion, but my opinion has always been that most of these sightings take place out where hunters tend to go after game. I find it amazing that none of those guys with guns have ever shot and killed one or found a fresh body of one that died naturally.

Just seems like it shoulda happened once or twice by now.

__________________

Pie can't compete with cake. Put candles in a cake it's a birthday cake. Put candles in a pie, someone's drunk in the kitchen. - Jim Gaffigan
Richer's Ghost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 03:39 PM
  #68
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,956
vCash: 1
That's all good and well, Ronnie, but you have to realize that, after a certain point, discussion about borderline scientific subjects stop being legitimate and fall to the category of pseudoscience. Just as the average biologist would be more than willing to have a discussion on practical criticisms about our current model of evolution and a chemist would be interested in having a debate on the effectiveness of a vaccine, those same folks would be quick to get aggravated with young earth creationists or the folks that believe that vaccines cause autism because the same old erroneous subjects have been brought up ad nauseam as it is, there's essentially no reputable scientific backing behind such excessive contrarian claims, and people that do bring up such points usually ignore everything else that contradicts what they said and is backed by reputable science for a variety of reasons.

Same thing goes here. Most people that don't believe in Bigfoot aren't interested in going into a protracted conversation because there's essentially no point. There's a mountain of scientific and logical reasons why an undiscovered, massive primate species doesn't exist in the Pacific Northwest and anecdotal "evidence" for them existing is extremely minimal, especially given the obvious implications that such a species would have on the local environment and wildlife. To be undetected given the size of the supposed species is, for all intents and purposes, near impossible in a highly populated and documented region.

The onus isn't on the people that don't believe in Bigfoot to prove a negative (something doesn't exist), but for the people that do believe in Bigfoot to prove a positive (something does exist). And to do that, you're going to need a body. Or a clear, undoctored photo or video. A small team was able to go into Pakistan during the unrest over there for the Planet Earth documentary and get excellent video of the snow leopard. We're talking about a species almost as elusive as a Sasquatch species would have to be if they existed in an area infinitely more remote and hazardous than the Pacific Northwest. But for an even larger species in a significantly more accessible, populated, and safe area? Just some grainy footage here and there and people claiming to have seen something but providing zero hard evidence. Something doesn't smell right here.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-03-2012 at 04:00 PM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 04:28 PM
  #69
Pittsburgh Proud
Registered User
 
Pittsburgh Proud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,869
vCash: 500

Pittsburgh Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:00 PM
  #70
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
That's all good and well, Ronnie, but you have to realize that, after a certain point, discussion about borderline scientific subjects stop being legitimate and fall to the category of pseudoscience. Just as the average biologist would be more than willing to have a discussion on practical criticisms about our current model of evolution and a chemist would be interested in having a debate on the effectiveness of a vaccine, those same folks would be quick to get aggravated with young earth creationists or the folks that believe that vaccines cause autism because the same old erroneous subjects have been brought up ad nauseam as it is, there's essentially no reputable scientific backing behind such excessive contrarian claims, and people that do bring up such points usually ignore everything else that contradicts what they said and is backed by reputable science for a variety of reasons.

Same thing goes here. Most people that don't believe in Bigfoot aren't interested in going into a protracted conversation because there's essentially no point. There's a mountain of scientific and logical reasons why an undiscovered, massive primate species doesn't exist in the Pacific Northwest and anecdotal "evidence" for them existing is extremely minimal, especially given the obvious implications that such a species would have on the local environment and wildlife. To be undetected given the size of the supposed species is, for all intents and purposes, near impossible in a highly populated and documented region.

The onus isn't on the people that don't believe in Bigfoot to prove a negative (something doesn't exist), but for the people that do believe in Bigfoot to prove a positive (something does exist). And to do that, you're going to need a body. Or a clear, undoctored photo or video. A small team was able to go into Pakistan during the unrest over there for the Planet Earth documentary and get excellent video of the snow leopard. We're talking about a species almost as elusive as a Sasquatch species would have to be if they existed in an area infinitely more remote and hazardous than the Pacific Northwest. But for an even larger species in a significantly more accessible, populated, and safe area? Just some grainy footage here and there and people claiming to have seen something but providing zero hard evidence. Something doesn't smell right here.
Dude, it's not pseudoscience, if anything it has everyday grown further and further from that description, as we speak now there are at least two teams of scientist working on DNA samples, as much as those who don't and won't believe have tried shamelessly to trash Dr Ketchum's good name, she is a reputable scientist as is Dr Brian Sykes of Oxford University who is also working on the same samples in England, then you have Dr Jeff Meldrum, a professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State, who is an well known and highly respected man in his field who is an expert on Bigfoot footprints. Throw in Jane Goodall who is a believer as well into the mix and we really only scratching the surface of those in science who take Sasquatch seriously.

And I can tell you that many skeptics as well as skeptical scientists who while profess to not believe would never use the word pseudoscience, because while there is not hard cut evidence for science to declare Bigfoot a species they realize there is enough evidence that suggests the possibility exists. Not to mention that word is insulting to me and anyone else in the Bigfoot community.

And footprints are evidence, sure there are some that are hoaxed and its usually the BF community that sniffs out just to show we don't fall hook, line and sinker for them.

And then there is the Patterson-Gimlin film from 1967, non-believers say its a suit, which is all fine and good, but we are still waiting for someone, anyone, to replicate it. No one has even come close. And we are talking about 45 years later with today's technology and special effects and still waiting.

Btw, there is going to be video footage released at the same time as Ketchum's DNA work, and not just any footage but High-Def video:

She said the results from her testing are going through what is called a peer review.

Quote:
We have at our disposal Hi-Def footage that will not be released until which time the publication is finished, she said. Hi-Def video of some sasquatch its quite remarkable. Its amazing.
http://myfox8.com/2012/12/01/texas-r...gfoot-is-real/

And this is no hoax either, other people in the field have seen and while they are limited by NDA's they do say it is amazing footage.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:22 PM
  #71
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richer's Ghost View Post
Not that I add anything relevant to the discussion, but my opinion has always been that most of these sightings take place out where hunters tend to go after game. I find it amazing that none of those guys with guns have ever shot and killed one or found a fresh body of one that died naturally.

Just seems like it shoulda happened once or twice by now.
Here is an report of a hunter meeting two Sasquatches, one of them a juvenile by the description of it:

Quote:
They moved about 40-50 feet to the right of me. At this point the larger one had its back to me I could make out facial features of the smaller one. It had very human-like features but a different nose. Hair covered most of its face but it looked to be thin hair, not like the rest of it.

Then the smaller creature spotted me because it went into a crouched and then squatting position and looked up in my direction. Their chattering began to quiet and then the larger one, with its back still to me, went into a squatting position for a few seconds. The smaller one then began to howl and bellow very loudly. The larger of the one, with its back still toward me began to howl very loud also. The larger creature then pushed the smaller one and the smaller one sprang to its feet and rapidly ran off across the hill to my right. It ran in long leaping strides and moved very fast like nothing I had ever seen. I never noticed it to ever look back.

As the smaller one ran the larger one stood up and slowly turned toward me. It had its arm bent above its forehead as if it were shading or hiding its eyes. It stood very straight and tall and looked directly at my tree stand.

All of the fear from before overcame me again and I prayed that thing did not try to come up my tree. I thought for an instant that I would yell at it, jerk or jump and maybe frighten it away but I could not bring myself to move. I could not even bat an eye. I could feel my legs starting to shake and I became very hot all over. For an instant I though I was going to pass out or become physically ill.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=12959

And another:

Quote:
I was dumbfounded! What the hell had I just seen? It took me about 10 seconds to grab my backpack and start running up the 10’ grade to Sulfur Spring Road to get another look. I slipped to one knee as I scrambled up the hill and pulled my Raging Bull out of its holster as I reached the road. My heart was racing and my hands were trembling but it wasn’t from the running—I was pretty damn scared!
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5463

And I have probably read several dozen reports of hunters encounters with Bigfoot and most tell of having the fear of God on them, you got to remember you're not taking a picture of a bear or even mountain lion, animals you have been programmed to know they exist, but something they defies everything you have learned about the woods and myths. Its an unsettling experience and its the same logic on why photos are so hard to obtain of them as well as exampled by here:



Quote:
BFRO Investigator: What were the events that led up to this incident?

Witness: We came down the road and turned around like usual and we go very slow down the end of the road. As we come down this road, probably at about 150 yards, maybe a little more out in the woods I could see something moving. I didn't know what it was and we went past a few trees and I ask the boy “WHAT IN THE HELL IS THAT?” He couldn't see it, and I drove ahead about another five feet. Stopped the truck and you could see a form coming. I call it a sasquatch. It kept coming. I said “Look at that!” He said “What is that??” “Well I don't know what the hell it is and I don't even have my camera.” Then he said “You do too have a camera – you’ve got your cellphone.” So I took the phone out and handed it to him. By the time he got the phone working that was when picture 1 was taken. It was about that time that it was fifty yards from us. Then the next picture it was probably thirty yards, for picture 2, and then it turned to its left.
http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=23160

When you see something that is not suppose to exist it becomes such a surreal moment in time that you could be holding a camera with a finger on the button and still never think to take a picture. Its happen to many witnesses, very few have the senses to snap out of what they are seeing and take that picture in the short time they have before it takes off. This report is a rare occasion they were able to get pictures but unfortunately the few seconds it took them to realize they had a camera it was really too late.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:31 PM
  #72
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pittsburgh Proud View Post
Try this one on for size, this was taken last May but they just posted it on YT the other day:



More investigators are using thermal cameras and this one is impressive, when you see it move it just doesn't look human at all, especially the arms.

EDIT: Here is the investigators website, gives a lot of background on it.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-03-2012 at 07:48 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:39 PM
  #73
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
But I do agree I need to get off what other people think and instead focusing on the science, so point taken there. I have almost a decades worth of investment on this and yes I am part of the Bigfoot community, so I have butted heads with those that don't believe and rarely do they end well, would like to avoid that here.
It's nice to believe in the fantastical, and I don't begrudge you it, but why are you so adamant? Most evidence is scant or has later been found to be a hoax. Plus, if you've seen the extent of craniofacial deformities that can occur in humans, it's not hard to believe that bigfoot are actually deformed bears or possibly gorillas.

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:43 PM
  #74
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 20,178
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopi View Post
It's nice to believe in the fantastical, and I don't begrudge you it, but why are you so adamant? Most evidence is scant or has later been found to be a hoax. Plus, if you've seen the extent of craniofacial deformities that can occur in humans, it's not hard to believe that bigfoot are actually deformed bears or possibly gorillas.
Very nice, thanks man.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 07:51 PM
  #75
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Shogunate of Nofunia
Country: Fiji
Posts: 28,956
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
Dude, it's not pseudoscience, if anything it has everyday grown further and further from that description, as we speak now there are at least two teams of scientist working on DNA samples, as much as those who don't and won't believe have tried shamelessly to trash Dr Ketchum's good name, she is a reputable scientist as is Dr Brian Sykes of Oxford University who is also working on the same samples in England, then you have Dr Jeff Meldrum, a professor of Anatomy and Anthropology at Idaho State, who is an well known and highly respected man in his field who is an expert on Bigfoot footprints. Throw in Jane Goodall who is a believer as well into the mix and we really only scratching the surface of those in science who take Sasquatch seriously.
That's all well and good, and some prominent folks are willing to admit the possibility, albeit very slim, but guess what.... until there's actual evidence, scientifically discernible evidence, it is pseudoscience.
Quote:
And I can tell you that many skeptics as well as skeptical scientists who while profess to not believe would never use the word pseudoscience, because while there is not hard cut evidence for science to declare Bigfoot a species they realize there is enough evidence that suggests the possibility exists. Not to mention that word is insulting to me and anyone else in the Bigfoot community.
To quote Wikipedia, because I'm too lazy to go to a dictionary site and already had Wiki up anyway....

Quote:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
What scientific method does belief in Bigfoot adhere to? Belief in unsubstantiated witnesses while ignoring the simple facts that there have been never been any bodies recovered, clear photographs made, or scientific studies of the species in the wild when we're dealing with a species that would have to have a massive environmental impact by its very nature in a region of the world very accessible to study is the height of pseudoscience.

Quote:
And footprints are evidence, sure there are some that are hoaxed and its usually the BF community that sniffs out just to show we don't fall hook, line and sinker for them.
People used to say that crop circles were evidence of UFO encounters and that they were impossible to do without overhead surveillance coordinating everything..... until a couple guys with a wood and metal bar recreated even the most complex crop circles with relative ease in a couple hours.

So no, footprints are not evidence, unless we're talking about fossilized prints.

Quote:
And then there is the Patterson-Gimlin film from 1967, non-believers say its a suit, which is all fine and good, but we are still waiting for someone, anyone, to replicate it. No one has even come close. And we are talking about 45 years later with today's technology and special effects and still waiting.

Btw, there is going to be video footage released at the same time as Ketchum's DNA work, and not just any footage but High-Def video:

She said the results from her testing are going through what is called a peer review.
No one has come close to replicating a suit? Uh.... what?

And the walk's been replicated lots of times on plenty of TV shows by skeptics of Bigfoot, so not sure what point you're making there. Plus, it's still being talked about today despite all the time that's passed just because it was famous footage, just like people still talk about the famous Nessie photo that's been admitted to be a hoax for years, too.

Quote:
http://myfox8.com/2012/12/01/texas-r...gfoot-is-real/

And this is no hoax either, other people in the field have seen and while they are limited by NDA's they do say it is amazing footage.
I'll hold my breath of the validity of the scientific evidence once they release the results of said evidence and open up access to the evidence to peer review, aka - the normal scientific process.

And.... what.... they have high depth footage but aren't releasing it? Suuuuuure.....

The question that I have to ask you through all of this is a simple one.... do you actually believe they have the evidence proving Bigfoot's existence or do you just really, really hope that they do? I don't have a horse in the race, if they do have evidence, oh no.... I'm wrong, as is essentially the entirety of the scientific community. But its discovery, even as a human-other species hybrid, would be so monumental in our understanding of human evolution that no one would care that they were wrong and be more excited about likely the most significant biological discovery in decades, so I wouldn't really care if I was wrong.

A decade or so back, a laboratory excitedly proclaimed that they had created the first human clone, much to the shock of scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and the general public everywhere. Only.... they didn't, and were just talking out of their keisters and made it all up. Scientists tend to believe in the concept of Occam's Razor, where the simplest explanation, or the one that makes the fewest assumptions, is usually the right one. Either this is a repeat of that or a massive primate species has managed to elude detection despite living along the border of two modern, western nations in relatively proximity to heavily populated areas of the Pacific Northwest until just now. Guess which one is the simplest explanation.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-03-2012 at 08:01 PM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.