HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Science
Science A place to discuss natural, formal and applied science topics such as chemistry, physics, biology, logic, engineering, etc.

DNA study suggests Bigfoot exists?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2012, 07:10 PM
  #76
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.


To quote Wikipedia, because I'm too lazy to go to a dictionary site and already had Wiki up anyway....



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.
What respected scientists in the Bigfoot community is practicing pseudoscience? Please be specific. Based on the definition you give I know of none.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.
Crop circles? Seriously? I think you're comparing apples and oranges quite honestly, crop circles are not an animal of any kind to begin with nor has anyone in science that I know of every taken it being aliens seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
So no, footprints are not evidence, unless we're talking about fossilized prints.
Why not? Its not enough to make the case that these is a Bigfoot but it still offers a clue on what might be out there.

Jimmy Chilcutt a expert with dermal ridges found the same castings of footprints in California AND Idaho - I think Idaho - 20 years apart. I tried to find the link to it but still looking for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.
You might want to check this out:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/data-p-g/

And then afterwards if you got time read this:

http://www.themunnsreport.com/the_munns_report_r1.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.....
Fair enough, but the last sentence you're starting to drift towards being cynical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.
I am heavily leaning towards yes but I can't say for sure until I see it myself, you might have little or no respect for me or what I believe in but do know I'm very much a skeptic. My fear is she has the goods but her presentation will be her Achilles heels. I also don't like some of the people associated with her, especially the Russian scientist who leaked her results nor her PR rep whose last name is ForrestPeople....nah really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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 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?
So what? Fraud happens everywhere, because it happened in one obscure lab we are to take this to mean its happening here? Com'on bro.

__________________
1995, 2000, 2003..........

Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-03-2012 at 10:12 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 08:12 PM
  #77
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
More evidence but in the audio category, this one this past March in Minnesota:

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/marc...nnesota-howls/


Keep in mind its always possible to be another animal, its why I'm always extremely skeptical of howls but some of them are just creepy, if anything its a spook to listen to lol.


In this YT below Minnesota again, the guy narrating is a bit annoying and he has a habit of thinking everything is Bigfoot, but the ones I feel are credible evidence he does breakdown well like this one:




Northern Minnesota is considered by many to be a great haven for the Bigfoot. But its three miles of tracks in deep snow.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-03-2012 at 08:45 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:44 PM
  #78
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
What respected scientists in the Bigfoot community is practicing pseudoscience? Please be specific. Based on the definition you give I know of none.
I bolded a fairly key word there.

I'd harken to say that no respected scientists are actively working on Bigfoot research, and only a few are admitting a possibility.

But, for instance, taking eyewitness testimony and disregarding obvious food and territory requirements that such a large species would require, even if in limited numbers, is very pseudoscientific. Additionally, that one video you posted where the guy is going on and on about how it's possibly a real Bigfoot sighting because the kids are being quiet and running away like it's real was downright hilarious.
Quote:
Crop circles? Seriously? I think you're comparing apples and oranges quite honestly, crop circles are not an animal of any kind to begin with nor has anyone in science that I know of every taken it being aliens seriously.
You claimed that footprints were evidence, when that's about the easiest thing to fake in the world. Some dude walking around goofy shoes can make a Bigfoot print to troll his friends or to make up a story about a Bigfoot sighting. Or misunderstood, as in a print of another large animal being warped in some way through natural means and being mistaken by people that don't know the first thing about tracking animals.
Quote:
Why not? Its not enough to make the case that these is a Bigfoot but it still offers a clue on what might be out there.

Jimmy Chilcutt a expert with dermal ridges found the same castings of footprints in California AND Idaho - I think Idaho - 20 years apart. I tried to find the link to it but still looking for it.
Looking up the dude, it seems like Jimmy Chilcutt is an expert fingerprint specialist. Okay, that might be something.... where did he work for? Oh, a mid-sized town's police department as a crime scene investigator? Hmm.... yeah, somehow doubting that he's such a huge specialist when he had a gig with a small city. Being a crime scene investigator isn't like CSI, it's mostly just monotonous, not very technical work that mostly revolves around not contaminating crime scenes and hoping that the criminal was dumb enough to leave behind a print and have a corresponding criminal record. Hardly the level of specialty to qualify someone as an expert in identifying other species' tracks.

Plus, someone claiming to be a specialist in a fringe field usually isn't, just fyi.

Quote:
You might want to check this out:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/data-p-g/

And then afterwards if you got time read this:

http://www.themunnsreport.com/the_munns_report_r1.pdf
Uh... the first one is comparing grainy footage at an angle from a distance on uneven terrain with an obviously obfuscated limb (either actual hair or just a costume) and comparing it to the angle of a relatively clear woman's leg, on even ground, and wearing high heels that obvious alters their natural gait. On top of that, if I'm correct and that video is a fraud, the Bigfoot's gait is likely very exaggerated while person in question's is their natural walk, so comparing the two in and of itself isn't very valid.

And, call me crazy, but I don't think that a website that has advertisement for a Bigfoot watch on top is a credible third party, peer-reviewed citation.

Other one is a pain in the butt PDF and I just don't feel like dealing with the chugging open time.

Quote:
Fair enough, but the last sentence you're starting to drift towards being cynical.
Yes, it's cynical, because I have reason to be cynical. Clear footage of a sasquatch would be invaluable as both a scientific study and from a base commercial release. No freaking way that they'd keep the lids on that.

And, even going along with the idea that they're waiting until the analysis is done before releasing it.... if that were the case, why would they be leaking news about it but not releasing information as the research isn't done yet? If they thought they had something conclusive but weren't sure entirely and wanted to double check, they sure as heck wouldn't be talking about it publicly out of the risk that they could be wrong and essentially put a red flag next to any additional research they do down the road. As a publicity stunt, though....

Quote:
I am heavily leaning towards yes but I can't say for sure until I see it myself, you might have little or no respect for me or what I believe in but do know I'm very much a skeptic. My fear is she has the goods but her presentation will be her Achilles heels. I also don't like some of the people associated with her, especially the Russian scientist who leaked her results nor her PR rep whose last name is ForrestPeople....nah really.
I don't even know you, dude. You having cooky opinions on one thing isn't enough for me to respect or not respect you. But, the thing about conspiracy theorists and cryptozoologists is that they tend to only really see things that back up their point of view and try to downplay everything that contradicts it, sort of like what you've been doing this entire topic. It's a built-in confirmation bias and, to use a phrase I know you don't like but is valid here, is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscientific research. When you are specifically looking for something in particular, it can have a very active blinder effect that makes you see everything in the light of that one thing, which makes things that are essentially innocuous by themselves or studied in a traditional lab setting appear to be conclusive when it's really not.

And, before you say that I'm doing the same thing by categorically denying that Sasquatches exist, remember that I'm essentially asking you to prove that something exists while you're asking me to prove that something doesn't exist. Take a wild guess which is the more applicable scientific starting point when talking about any type of research.

Quote:
So what? Fraud happens everywhere, because it happened in one obscure lab we are to take this to mean its happening here? Com'on bro.
I'm simply saying that believing in a concept that has the least holes is usually the smart path in life, and a single lab lying or just plain being wrong has much less holes in it than a massive mystery species existing under our collective noses for a couple centuries that somehow escaped mainstream research throughout that entire time until now.

As for the sound aspects, I liken it to the zebra analogy in the medical community. When you hear hoofprints, assume that horses are behind you because zebras are much less common. When you see a patient with unusual symptoms, probably safe to work with the idea that they're experiencing less common symptoms of a normal disease versus experiencing a very rare disease. And, when dealing with unclear animal audio, assuming that it's just an oddly vocalizing member of a species that we're already aware of instead of a brand-spanking new species that's been hiding from us for centuries is almost always a more accurate path to follow. Because, you know what....? You're probably right.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-03-2012 at 10:52 PM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 08:40 AM
  #79
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I bolded a fairly key word there.

I'd harken to say that no respected scientists are actively working on Bigfoot research, and only a few are admitting a possibility.
I got this list from a friend - a scientist himself and who gave me permission to use - of people in his field that have done research into Bigfoot. I think their credentials speak for themselves and I STILL want to know what methods of pseudoscience any of them have used.

I really hope you answer the question this time. The list:

Jeff Meldrum
Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989. He held the position of postdoctoral visiting assistant professor at Duke University Medical Center from 1989 to 1991. Meldrum worked at Northwestern University's Department of Cell, Molecular and Structural Biology for a short while in 1993 before joining the faculty of Idaho State University where he currently teaches.

Henner Fahrenbach
Wolf-Henrich (Henner) Fahrenbach, Ph.D., was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1932. He earned a Ph.D. in zoology at the University of Washington in 1961, followed by a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, from 1961 to 1963. He served as the head of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy at the Oregon Regional Primate Center in Beaverton, OR, from 1967 to 1997, and as a Clinical Affiliate Professor in the Department of Integrative Biosciences at the Oregon Health & Sciences University’s School of Dentistry in Portland, OR, from 1987 to 2007. Professional memberships include(d) the American Association of Anatomists, American Society for Cell Biology, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and others. He served on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Insect Morphology and Embryology (1978-1982) and Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie (1977-1982)."

George Schaller
Schaller received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Alaska in 1955, and went on to the University of Wisconsin–Madison to obtain his Ph.D. in 1962.[9][10] From 1962 to 1963, he was a fellow at the Behavioral Sciences department of Stanford University. From 1963 to 1966, Schaller served as research associate for the Johns Hopkins University Pathobiology department, and from 1966 to 1972, served as the Rockefeller University's and New York Zoological Society's research associate in research and animal behavior. [11] He later served as Director of the New York Zoological Society's International Conservation Program from 1979 to 1988.[3]

Daris Swindler
. . . He went on to study anthropology at West Virginia University and the University of Pennsylvania.[1] A long-time professor at the University of Washington, Dr Swindler also taught human anatomy at Cornell University Medical College (now known as Weill Medical College of Cornell University), at the University of South Carolina and Michigan State University. . . Swindler was generally acknowledged as a leading primate expert, having specialized in the study of fossilized teeth; his book An Atlas of Primate Gross Anatomy is a standard work in the field.[2] . . . Dr Swindler adored his students and is remembered by many as a the most important instructor and aid in attaining their doctorates. Publishing over 9 books, he traveled the world from an archaeological dig in the Valley of the Kings to Easter Island. Just prior to Swindler's death in December 2007 the University of Washington established a graduate fellowship in his name.

Jane Goodall
Dame Jane Morris Goodall, DBE (born Valerie Jane Morris-Goodall on 3 April 1934)[1] is a British primatologist, ethologist, anthropologist, and UN Messenger of Peace.[2] Considered to be the world's foremost expert on chimpanzees, Goodall is best known for her 45-year study of social and family interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania.[3] She is the founder of the Jane Goodall Institute and has worked extensively on conservation and animal welfare issues.

John Bindernagel
From his author page at Amazon (‘cause Wikipedia entry was lame):
John Bindernagel, PhD, is a Canadian biologist with over forty years of experience in wildlife research and conservation in North America and internationally. He was educated at the University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada) and at the University of Wisconsin (USA). After beginning his career in Canada in 1963, he worked internationally with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations from 1965 until 1991. During this time he worked and taught in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Central America. There he was involved in wildlife surveys, the preparation and implementation of wildlife management measures, and conservation education.

From Bindernagel’s website:
John Bindernagel, B.S.A., MS, Ph.D.
I am a professional wildlife biologist who is seriously studying the sasquatch or bigfoot in North America. My interest in this animal began in 1963 when, as a third-year-student in wildlife management at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, I was laughed at for raising the report of an animal described as an "ape-man" for possible discussion. My field work began in 1975 when our family moved to British Columbia, partly in order for me to begin field work on this species. In 1988, my wife and I found several sasquatch tracks in good condition in the mountains not far from our home on Vancouver Island.

Grover Krantz
Grover Sanders Krantz (November 5, 1931 – February 14, 2002) was a professor of physical anthropology at Washington State University, perhaps most famous to the general public as one of the few scientists not only to research Bigfoot, but also to express his belief in the cryptid's existence. Throughout his professional career, Krantz authored more than 60 academic articles and 10 books on human evolution,[1][2] and conducted field research in Europe, China, and Java.[3][4]

John Napier
John Russell Napier, MRCS, LRCP, D.Sc. (1917 – 29 August 1987) was a British primatologist, paleoathropologist, and physician, who is notable for his work with Homo habilis and OH 7,[3] as well as on human and primate hands/feet. During his life he was widely considered a leading authority on primate taxonomy,[1][4] but is perhaps most famous to the general public for his research on Bigfoot.

Bryan Sykes
Bryan Sykes (born 9 September 1947) is a former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College.
Sykes published the first report on retrieving DNA from ancient bone (Nature, 1989). Sykes has been involved in a number of high-profile cases dealing with ancient DNA, including those of Ötzi the Iceman and Cheddar Man, and others concerning people claiming to be members of the Romanovs, the Russian royal family. His work also suggested a Florida accountant by the name of Tom Robinson was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, a claim that was subsequently disputed.[1] [2] [3]
Sykes is best known outside the community of geneticists for his bestselling books on the investigation of human history and prehistory through studies of mitochondrial DNA. He is also the founder of Oxford Ancestors, a genealogical DNA testing firm.

Henry Gee
Dr Henry Gee (b. 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of Nature, the scientific journal.[1]
Gee earnt his B.Sc. at the University of Leeds and completed his Ph. D. at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where, in his spare time, he played keyboard for a jazz band fronted by Sonita Alleyne, who went on to establish the TV and radio production company Somethin’ Else.[2] Gee joined Nature as a reporter in 1987 and is now Senior Editor, Biological Sciences. He has published a number of books, including Before the Backbone: Views on the Origin of the Vertebrates (1996), In Search of Deep Time (1999),[3][4] A Field Guide to Dinosaurs (illustrated by Luis Rey) (2003) and Jacob's Ladder (2004).


And even more!:

Wu, X., X. Zeng, and H. Yao. 1993. Analysis of a single strand of hair by PIXE, IXX and synchrotron radiation. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B75: 567–570.

Milinkovitch, M C., A. Caccone, and G. Amato. 2004. Molecular phylogenetic analyses indicate extensive morphological convergence between the ‘‘yeti’’ and primates. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: 1–3.

Lozier, J. D., P. Aniello, and M. J. Hickerson. 2009. Predicting the distribution of Sasquatch in western North America: anything goes with ecological niche modelling. Journal of Biogeography 36: 1623–1627.

Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Y. Kim. 2008. In the footprints of our ancestors: an overview of the hominid track record. Ichnos 15: 106–125.

Kim, J. Y., K. S. Kim., M. G. Lockley, and N. Matthews. 2008. Hominid ichnotaxonomy: an exploration of a neglected discipline. Ichnos 15: 126–139.

Coltman, D. and C. Davis 2006. Molecular cryptozoology meets the Sasquatch. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21: 60–61.

ALL men and women of science and all have done research



Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
But, for instance, taking eyewitness testimony and disregarding obvious food and territory requirements that such a large species would require, even if in limited numbers, is very pseudoscientific. Additionally, that one video you posted where the guy is going on and on about how it's possibly a real Bigfoot sighting because the kids are being quiet and running away like it's real was downright hilarious.
What scientist practices this? I know of none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
You claimed that footprints were evidence, when that's about the easiest thing to fake in the world. Some dude walking around goofy shoes can make a Bigfoot print to troll his friends or to make up a story about a Bigfoot sighting. Or misunderstood, as in a print of another large animal being warped in some way through natural means and being mistaken by people that don't know the first thing about tracking animals.
Yes, some jokers have pulled tricks with phoney footprints, but there are hundreds and maybe even thousands of Bigfoot footprints in areas of vast wilderness that no one would have any businesses pulling hoaxes, not some park in Chicago. Your theory makes zero sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Looking up the dude, it seems like Jimmy Chilcutt is an expert fingerprint specialist. Okay, that might be something.... where did he work for? Oh, a mid-sized town's police department as a crime scene investigator? Hmm.... yeah, somehow doubting that he's such a huge specialist when he had a gig with a small city. Being a crime scene investigator isn't like CSI, it's mostly just monotonous, not very technical work that mostly revolves around not contaminating crime scenes and hoping that the criminal was dumb enough to leave behind a print and have a corresponding criminal record. Hardly the level of specialty to qualify someone as an expert in identifying other species' tracks.

Plus, someone claiming to be a specialist in a fringe field usually isn't, just fyi.
This is just too easy.

Quote:
Mr. Chilcutt has over one thousand classroom hours of instruction in forensic subjects including basic identification at D.P.S. Austin, advanced latent fingerprint comparison F.B.I. University of Houston, advanced latent palm print comparison Mississippi State Crime Lab, advanced crime scene investigation, and many other forensic related subjects. He has testified as a fingerprint expert on County, District and Federal courts in several counties in Texas and North Carolina. In the Crime lab he has developed unique procedures in developing latent fingerprints that have drawn hundreds of requests from Federal, State, and County agencies to process their evidence. These agencies include FBI, DEA, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Service, DPS Narcotic Units throughout Texas, and various County Sheriff Departments.

Awards received for his outstanding service in forensics include, three City of Conroe outstanding officer awards, one meritorious service award, three county wide officer of the year awards, the 100 Club officer of the year award, and the coveted Directors Award from the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Mr. Chilcutt has often been a guest lecturer at Sam Houston State University, Idaho State University, North Harris County College, and for the Conroe High School Criminal Justice Program. He also teaches the State of Texas Intermediate Crime Scene Investigation Core Course at the FBI/Conroe P.D. training facility.
Quote:
Article from the Houston Chronicle:

Jimmy Chilcutt is not someone most people would associate with the kind of wild, unsubstantiated stories that show up in supermarket tabloids. Chilcutt, 54, is skeptical by nature. His job as a fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department requires hard-nosed judgments and painstaking attention to detail.

He is highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies because of his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail.

But in doing what comes naturally -- being careful and thorough -- he ended up rocking his own skepticism about one of the most sensational tales that routinely show up in the tabloids.

Chilcutt's quest to squeeze more information out of fingerprints led him to develop a rare expertise in nonhuman primate prints. He tried to use his special knowledge to debunk alleged evidence of Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch.

But his examination of alleged Bigfoot footprint castings didn't lead to the conclusion he had expected. He now believes that -- while some of them are fakes -- some are the genuine prints of a reclusive animal that has yet to be documented and studied.
http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com/2006...-chilcutt.html

Yeah, he's a regular Barney Fife.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Uh... the first one is comparing grainy footage at an angle from a distance on uneven terrain with an obviously obfuscated limb (either actual hair or just a costume) and comparing it to the angle of a relatively clear woman's leg, on even ground, and wearing high heels that obvious alters their natural gait. On top of that, if I'm correct and that video is a fraud, the Bigfoot's gait is likely very exaggerated while person in question's is their natural walk, so comparing the two in and of itself isn't very valid.
You really think someone could be walking around the woods naked and that hairy?? Lol okay.

And yeah, no surprise you dismissed this and probably without regard.



Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Other one is a pain in the butt PDF and I just don't feel like dealing with the chugging open time.
Yeah, that's it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Yes, it's cynical, because I have reason to be cynical. Clear footage of a sasquatch would be invaluable as both a scientific study and from a base commercial release. No freaking way that they'd keep the lids on that.

And, even going along with the idea that they're waiting until the analysis is done before releasing it.... if that were the case, why would they be leaking news about it but not releasing information as the research isn't done yet? If they thought they had something conclusive but weren't sure entirely and wanted to double check, they sure as heck wouldn't be talking about it publicly out of the risk that they could be wrong and essentially put a red flag next to any additional research they do down the road. As a publicity stunt, though....
I'm not in the bag for any of the researchers, I just want the evidence, in other words I'm going to question them more than defend them. So you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I don't even know you, dude. You having cooky opinions on one thing isn't enough for me to respect or not respect you. But, the thing about conspiracy theorists and cryptozoologists is that they tend to only really see things that back up their point of view and try to downplay everything that contradicts it, sort of like what you've been doing this entire topic. It's a built-in confirmation bias and, to use a phrase I know you don't like but is valid here, is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscientific research. When you are specifically looking for something in particular, it can have a very active blinder effect that makes you see everything in the light of that one thing, which makes things that are essentially innocuous by themselves or studied in a traditional lab setting appear to be conclusive when it's really not.
This comment says more about you than it does me. Nice tolerance buddy.

The rest of your post is just jibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
And, before you say that I'm doing the same thing by categorically denying that Sasquatches exist, remember that I'm essentially asking you to prove that something exists while you're asking me to prove that something doesn't exist. Take a wild guess which is the more applicable scientific starting point when talking about any type of research.
I'm pretty sure a dismissive attitude such as yours would be frown upon by the scientific community. They want skepticism, not what you bring to the table

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
I'm simply saying that believing in a concept that has the least holes is usually the smart path in life, and a single lab lying or just plain being wrong has much less holes in it than a massive mystery species existing under our collective noses for a couple centuries that somehow escaped mainstream research throughout that entire time until now.
Lol, there are four labs involved with Ketchum's DNA research, two private labs, a university lab and a government lab, all independent of each other.

Where are you getting single lab from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
As for the sound aspects, I liken it to the zebra analogy in the medical community. When you hear hoofprints, assume that horses are behind you because zebras are much less common. When you see a patient with unusual symptoms, probably safe to work with the idea that they're experiencing less common symptoms of a normal disease versus experiencing a very rare disease. And, when dealing with unclear animal audio, assuming that it's just an oddly vocalizing member of a species that we're already aware of instead of a brand-spanking new species that's been hiding from us for centuries is almost always a more accurate path to follow. Because, you know what....? You're probably right.
Don't recall ever suggesting audio evidence should be used by science to help confirm any species, let alone Bigfoot.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:09 AM
  #80
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Now you're just coming off as desperate, dude. Nice to know that your buddy (who's a scientist!) can vouch that those folks are all actively working on Bigfoot research, which is amazing considering that several of them, especially Goodell, work on different continents and are focusing on other research.

And a few of their supposed comments regarding the voracity of Bigfoot seem extremely limited and based on hearsay rather than academic journal publications or field work, besides the one mentioned that says he found tracks while living out there. As for the authors that have articles specifically mentioned, by the very citations several of them indicate that mentioning of Bigfoot is done in passing by the nature of the short page selections. The things you trotted out are blurbs more than research.

And yes, pseudoscientific is still the term to use here. Rather than using scientifically sound population resource requirement and gene diversification models that would clearly suggest that in order for a unique species of Bigfoot's size to develop and sustain itself, which by its very nature would leave behind ample evidence beyond the occasional track and grainy footage, such as a fossil record, significantly more sightings of all varieties of quality, discovered specimens (alive and dead), and likely a fossil record, they're more accepting that they're the most elusive species in history for some reason. Considering the possibility that such a species would simultaneously have such massive needs and yet leave behind such scant evidence for its existence, especially in a well-populated, -visited, and -studied part of the world, takes a massive leap of faith beyond anything remotely close to a legitimate scientific methodology and therefore would meet the pseudoscience definition by ignoring that and trying to supplant it with only things that back up their point of view.

And apologies to Mr. Chilcutt for downplaying his experience. He clearly is well-decorated.... but not in areas applicable that as an expert primatologist witness or specialist in other species' tracks, especially for supposedly imunidentified species. This is a classic example of the pseudoscience/conspiracy rational. Take someone with experience in one field, claim that they're thereby experts in unrelated fields, and that their word on the subject is thereby reliable.

As for the prints and the idea of a hairy concept and if people would be willing to fake that.... uh, yeah? People have been faking things, from supposedly ancient manuscripts to diaries of Hitler to photos of fairies to sightings of various beasts, for centuries. I'll believe the voracity of a grainy image when that's about the most concrete thing about it just as soon as I'd believe someone that presents a scientific hypothesis or a historical assumption based off a gut feeling.

And, believe it or not, skepticism is a good part of the scientific concept. I'm holding evidence of Bigfoot to the same level as any other science. I expect more than heresay and slim pickings, as should anybody. Give me a clear sighting, give me a theoretical model, give me peer reviewed DNA (rather than claiming to have the good stuff), give me a fossil or a body or anything that can be authenticicated. Don't give me grief for not believing the word of a few people when all the rational problems that exist about a Bigfoot existing without widespread detection and then say that I'm just being dismissive when you're just being overly critical on everything that you disagree with and lax on things that fit what you believe in.

If science as a whole had as lax of a methodology as Bigfoot research has, we'd be chasing down every ghost sighting, every UFO abduction, every paranormal claim, every creation myth, every doomsday prophecy, every everything as the expectation would be that until something is conclusively disproven it's still valid research as it could still exist. That's not sound science, it's make believe.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-05-2012 at 10:15 AM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:24 AM
  #81
Richer's Ghost
Moderator
You are reading this
 
Richer's Ghost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: photoshop labor camp
Country: United States
Posts: 47,556
vCash: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Now you're just coming off as desperate, dude. Nice to know that your buddy (who's a scientist!) can vouch that those folks are all actively working on Bigfoot research, which is amazing considering that several of them, especially Goodell, work on different continents and are focusing on other research.
Actually now you're the one coming off desperate - to toss out anything he's posting.

Vouching? He listed the credentials. His "buddy" didn't supply a personal opinion of anyone. Let's lay off the personal chiding and leave opinion to the subject matter, not the poster.

__________________

Ball pits are just toilets filled with brightly colored balls instead of water.
Richer's Ghost is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:41 AM
  #82
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Yeah, I think its best I moved along from Mr. No Fun Shogun. Nothing is really getting gained from this, though I hope I did bring to the table things that might interest others who have an open mind to this subject.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:58 AM
  #83
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Here is a pretty interesting article, its just a writers perspective on how this could have played out IF Ketchum's study is correct:

http://voices.yahoo.com/sasquatch-ge...39.html?cat=37

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:15 PM
  #84
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Nothing's being gained because you're not presenting counteracting claims to legitimate criticisms while providing laughably weak evidence as somehow trumping everything that I, and others, have brought up.

Like the opinion piece written by a self-described "Artist and Published Author," and "Certified Adobe Expert" you just provided, which is saying that Sasquatches have Alpine origins from 15,000 years ago without providing a shred of credible evidence, explanation for how they migrated from Switzerland to Washington so incredibly rapidly, using the phrase "Ancient Ones" with a straight face, and even having the gall to trot out the idea that it's a "plausible theory" (which I find personally distasteful as that type of writing is the very reason why creationists keep getting away with undervaluing the word "theory"). That article's the very reason why people don't take this stuff seriously, Ronnie, and the idea that you think it's at all valid information would be about akin to me claiming to be a valid historian and then present a book by Gavin Menzies (a kook that believes that China discovered the New World in the 1400s and who has been thoroughly lambasted for his ridiculously weak research) as supporting me. Him claiming DNA matching isn't good enough, as, guess what, we have to take his word at it!

This isn't science, this is sensationalism trying to claim to be scientific.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 12:42 PM
  #85
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Nothing's being gained because you're not presenting counteracting claims to legitimate criticisms while providing laughably weak evidence as somehow trumping everything that I, and others, have brought up.

Like the opinion piece written by a self-described "Artist and Published Author," and "Certified Adobe Expert" you just provided, which is saying that Sasquatches have Alpine origins from 15,000 years ago without providing a shred of credible evidence, explanation for how they migrated from Switzerland to Washington so incredibly rapidly, using the phrase "Ancient Ones" with a straight face, and even having the gall to trot out the idea that it's a "plausible theory" (which I find personally distasteful as that type of writing is the very reason why creationists keep getting away with undervaluing the word "theory"). That article's the very reason why people don't take this stuff seriously, Ronnie, and the idea that you think it's at all valid information would be about akin to me claiming to be a valid historian and then present a book by Gavin Menzies (a kook that believes that China discovered the New World in the 1400s and who has been thoroughly lambasted for his ridiculously weak research) as supporting me. Him claiming DNA matching isn't good enough, as, guess what, we have to take his word at it!

This isn't science, this is sensationalism trying to claim to be scientific.
This post in a nutshell explains your dismissive attitude, the author never claimed ANYTHING! I even explained he was just putting out a scenario of HOW this could have happened and never laid claim this is WHAT happen and even made this clear:

Quote:
This scenario is presented as an introduction to what may be regarded as plausible theory on the origins of the Sasquatch, also known as Bigfoot, existing today in North America.
And do note the "plausible theory" he is talking about is the hybrid theory put forth by many including the author, not the scenario he plays out, I feel I need to explain this to you I suspect you either don't fully read - if you read it at all - what I present because your mind is already made up.

Its closed and not open for any new ideas.

Either way I have said my peace with you.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-05-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:34 PM
  #86
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
He presented it as a plausible theory by his very willingness to use it as a word.

"Theory" has a specific scientific definition, which his little story does not even come close to fulfilling. And, again, the "hybrid theory" is not a theory. At most, it's a hypothesis as, for the hundredth time, it doesn't have credible backing behind it to warrant that label. By using that, he's either recognizing something as a theory when it's not or he doesn't understand what that term means scientifically, neither of which point very well to his understanding of/objectivity on the subject matter.

And if anything, you're the one with the closed mind. I'm expecting something to follow the basic scientific model that every field follows, especially biology, and have mainstream, peer-reviewed research in order to take it credibly. You're ignoring all the reasons why a hidden, massive primate species managing to exist in relative close proximity to major metropolitan areas and visited/researched wilderness without producing more than inconclusive prints and grainy footage is extremely unlikely while accepting random blurbs, sketchy eyewitness testimony, and other people's word that they have something huge but are keeping it close to their chest right now as being truth that overrides all the logical loopholes that exist in all the ideas that you have thrown out there.

Open or closed mindedness has nothing to do with it. It's about critical thinking and willingness to take leaps of faith. So if I'm close-minded because I'm not willing to take a massive leap in faith over the concept that a large, mammalian land species has managed to evade modern scientific study for a good two centuries despite the obvious resources and range that said species would need, all over well inhabited or traversed grounds, and take other people's word at face value just because they say they have something, then guilty as charged.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 01:44 PM
  #87
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
He presented it as a plausible theory by his very willingness to use it as a word.

"Theory" has a specific scientific definition, which his little story does not even come close to fulfilling. And, again, the "hybrid theory" is not a theory. At most, it's a hypothesis as, for the hundredth time, it doesn't have credible backing behind it to warrant that label. By using that, he's either recognizing something as a theory when it's not or he doesn't understand what that term means scientifically, neither of which point very well to his understanding of/objectivity on the subject matter.

And if anything, you're the one with the closed mind. I'm expecting something to follow the basic scientific model that every field follows, especially biology, and have mainstream, peer-reviewed research in order to take it credibly. You're ignoring all the reasons why a hidden, massive primate species managing to exist in relative close proximity to major metropolitan areas and visited/researched wilderness without producing more than inconclusive prints and grainy footage is extremely unlikely while accepting random blurbs, sketchy eyewitness testimony, and other people's word that they have something huge but are keeping it close to their chest right now as being truth that overrides all the logical loopholes that exist in all the ideas that you have thrown out there.

Open or closed mindedness has nothing to do with it. It's about critical thinking and willingness to take leaps of faith. So if I'm close-minded because I'm not willing to take a massive leap in faith over the concept that a large, mammalian land species has managed to evade modern scientific study for a good two centuries despite the obvious resources and range that said species would need, all over well inhabited or traversed grounds, and take other people's word at face value just because they say they have something, then guilty as charged.
********. You're really starting to piss me off, in the ten years I have debated the existence of Bigfoot and you're by far the most condescending and dismissive person when it comes to understanding how science met I have ever dealt with, its a shame this thread as taken this ugly turn but it has, I was asked by many to present evidence and facts and I did and instead of good faith discussion on what I present I get in return FROM YOU nothing but derisiveness and contempt and mostly laughter. It's sadly the ONLY thing you have brought to this table.

This is NOT what this forum should be about, people should be open to others ideas without anyone have to deal with ideas and opinions being mocked on. Ugh.


Last edited by Ronnie Bass: 12-05-2012 at 02:07 PM.
Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 02:19 PM
  #88
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Okay, whatever. Sorry to disappoint with expecting people that believe in Bigfoot to adhere to basic scientific principles as any other field. And many have asked you for evidence, and besides me many have also dismissed your evidence as well for being not factually sound.

You debating something for a long time doesn't mean it's a valid scientific standpoint, and the points I, and others, have brought up (including, but not limited to, lack of widespread evidence as one would expect of a species like Bigfoot to leave behind from the immediate ecological impact to a fossil record, questioning the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony when that's largely the strongest thing going the idea that Bigfoot exists right now, lack of peer-reviewed content as one would expect for major research into any species, lack of an explanation for why a lab should be trusted at their word in spite of the logical arguments against Bigfoot from existing) all still stand.

You not liking the fact that I don't play along with things like this, much as I don't play along with people that routinely bring up discredited arguments about the moon landing being fake or someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald being behind the Kennedy assassination or general paranormal sightings or the notion that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks or creation "science" attempts to discredit evolution or essentially any other cryptozoological debate that takes flimsy things here and there at face value while ignoring all the massive holes that make supposed evidence comically tiny when taken in from afar. The simple fact is that when looking at the idea of Bigfoot existing from a purely scientific standpoint, the arguments against one existing are ridiculously stronger and harder to explain away than the ones that say they do exist.

Sorry if someone else has the idea that a science forum should adhere to the basic scientific model of evidence and research is that upsetting to you.

No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 04:37 PM
  #89
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Okay, whatever. Sorry to disappoint with expecting people that believe in Bigfoot to adhere to basic scientific principles as any other field. And many have asked you for evidence, and besides me many have also dismissed your evidence as well for being not factually sound.
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.

So now you got two questions on your docket that I will be waiting for answers for

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
You debating something for a long time doesn't mean it's a valid scientific standpoint, and the points I, and others, have brought up (including, but not limited to, lack of widespread evidence as one would expect of a species like Bigfoot to leave behind from the immediate ecological impact to a fossil record, questioning the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony when that's largely the strongest thing going the idea that Bigfoot exists right now, lack of peer-reviewed content as one would expect for major research into any species, lack of an explanation for why a lab should be trusted at their word in spite of the logical arguments against Bigfoot from existing) all still stand.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
You not liking the fact that I don't play along with things like this, much as I don't play along with people that routinely bring up discredited arguments about the moon landing being fake or someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald being behind the Kennedy assassination or general paranormal sightings or the notion that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks or creation "science" attempts to discredit evolution or essentially any other cryptozoological debate that takes flimsy things here and there at face value while ignoring all the massive holes that make supposed evidence comically tiny when taken in from afar. The simple fact is that when looking at the idea of Bigfoot existing from a purely scientific standpoint, the arguments against one existing are ridiculously stronger and harder to explain away than the ones that say they do exist.
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??


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Sorry if someone else has the idea that a science forum should adhere to the basic scientific model of evidence and research is that upsetting to you.
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.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 04:42 PM
  #90
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,697
vCash: 703
Link to a mangy bear

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/mangy-bear/

octopi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 04:51 PM
  #91
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopi View Post
About 90% of the BF community thinks its a bear, its a select few that think its a Bigfoot and they are mostly from BFRO. So it seems.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 05:24 PM
  #92
AfroThunder396
Lou's Secret Sauce
 
AfroThunder396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,456
vCash: 50
I think it's much more possible than people give it credit for. And a lot of the so-called rebukes are incredibly weak. I have no hard evidence, but I have no hard evidence it doesn't exist, so the circumstantial evidence we have leaves the door open.

AfroThunder396 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 07:50 PM
  #93
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Old
12-05-2012, 08:14 PM
  #94
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
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.
I can't go point for point with you because one, I got to pack for my trip to California tomorrow morning and two because its infuriating to do so and done with it for now, but I want to address this.

What basic population model requirements did you use to determine there is not a sufficient large population for mating or there is enough resources to feed a population? And how do you know what it will eat?

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:21 PM
  #95
No Fun Shogun
Global Moderator
34-38-61-10-13
 
No Fun Shogun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 24,570
vCash: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Bass View Post
I can't go point for point with you because one, I got to pack for my trip to California tomorrow morning and two because its infuriating to do so and done with it for now, but I want to address this.

What basic population model requirements did you use to determine there is not a sufficient large population for mating or there is enough resources to feed a population? And how do you know what it will eat?
.... seriously? You're asking this now?

Alright, fine. Simply put, for the viability of a species to survive, it needs two things.... food and the ability to successfully produce offspring, both of which require resources. It doesn't matter what a Bigfoot would eat, it would need a lot of it just by the very nature of its size. A large carnivore species, even if in very small numbers, would leave behind extremely high numbers of kills and would thus be traceable. A large herbivore species would need broader territory to collect food, which opens the possibilities of people just happening upon them. And, in order to be sustainable as a species, it would need to have a significant population, in the high hundreds if not thousands, and even that would likely be at the very least. And, on top of that, even with those low numbers, which is what stands for larger herbivore species that we're aware of that are on the verge of endangered or critical status, the likely result of their low numbers is from contact with humans or human introduced species. As I'm doubting that a new species has caused them to start dying out, and even if it did it'd just mean more bodies that we should be finding, for a species to have even such as low of a population as I described it would imply either their numbers have been low for centuries to predate western contact (signifying a prolonged population bottleneck) or that their numbers are dwindling due to human contact, most likely from hunting. As we aren't seeing stuffed Bigfoots all over the place or genuine Sasquatch fur coats on the market, it seems that sudden population decline due to human encroachment is unlikely, so a prolonged bottleneck is the only possible scenario.

So, for that necessary genetic diversification to have large enough numbers to remain viable as a species and yet small enough in total numbers to best remain hidden from human observation, we're still talking about hundreds in terms of total species population based on simple models we find with other species of similar size, or even smaller size, all of which is relatively easily tracked, quantified, measured, and even interfered with to try to keep species alive. These are all obviously estimates, but roughly in line with plenty of larger large animal minimum requirements for necessary genetic diversification, and likely even on the low end of what would be required without human assistance protecting their status as endangered from other humans.

Now, to even feed that few, they would need resources. Even if they were just grass eaters, we'd probably be talking about a very broad territory that they'd need to roam, likely a significant chunk of the Pacific Northwest on both sides of the border. Especially as plenty of the supposed sighting take place within relative hiking distance of towns, we're not talking about way up north where nobody lives by the Yukon, we're talking about in southern British Columbia and in Washington and Oregon, plus let's throw in Alberta, Idaho, and Montana to give them as much room as possible and, theoretically, the most area in which to hide.

Only problem is that if we were talking about even only a few hundred spread over that large of an area, it's still a measurable impact on the local ecology that would be noticed by even high school geology teachers on field trip, boy scouts, and camp counselors. And in such numbers that sightings would be extremely common, like they are for other larger animals like bears and cougars and moose and elk, over even a broad stretch of territory where they have limited numbers, which would be noticed by locals, visitors, scientists, hunters, you name it.

So, here's the thing, we're talking about a number of scenarios, when looking at it logically, that uniformly dismiss the possibility of Bigfoot existing and somehow remaining hidden for all these years. If it's a very small population in a tiny, hidden area, resources would not be sufficient unless we're saying obscenely small numbers, and then the issue would be utter lack of genetic diversity leading to the likely eventual extinction of the race through inbreeding-related issues as the generations pass, so that model of a species probably would've already died out long, long ago. If it's a small population over a vast area, resources are less of an issue and theoretically possible to hide, but mating becomes extremely difficult given the distances involved without humans noticing the migratory patterns and likely mating grounds. And, on the other end, medium, larger, and very large population would all be too big to be confined to a tiny hidden area and, when spread out, means a species that would be as easy to detect as any other routine animal who cannot possibly hide from humans.

Nothing about the models of what we'd expect a Sasquatch species fits the mold of being simultaneously populous enough to be genetically viable, able to collect enough resources to remain sustainable, and somehow stay hidden enough to remain mostly the stuff of unconfirmed species.


Last edited by No Fun Shogun: 12-05-2012 at 09:37 PM.
No Fun Shogun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 09:55 PM
  #96
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
.... seriously? You're asking this now?
Is this a rhetorical question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by No Fun Shogun View Post
Alright, fine. Simply put, for the viability of a species to survive, it needs two things.... food and the ability to successfully produce offspring, both of which require resources. It doesn't matter what a Bigfoot would eat, it would need a lot of it just by the very nature of its size. A large carnivore species, even if in very small numbers, would leave behind extremely high numbers of kills and would thus be traceable. A large herbivore species would need broader territory to collect food, which opens the possibilities of people just happening upon them. And, in order to be sustainable as a species, it would need to have a significant population, in the high hundreds if not thousands, and even that would likely be at the very least. And, on top of that, even with those low numbers, which is what stands for larger herbivore species that we're aware of that are on the verge of endangered or critical status, the likely result of their low numbers is from contact with humans or human introduced species. As I'm doubting that a new species has caused them to start dying out, and even if it did it'd just mean more bodies that we should be finding, for a species to have even such as low of a population as I described it would imply either their numbers have been low for centuries to predate western contact (signifying a prolonged population bottleneck) or that their numbers are dwindling due to human contact, most likely from hunting. As we aren't seeing stuffed Bigfoots all over the place or genuine Sasquatch fur coats on the market, it seems that sudden population decline due to human encroachment is unlikely, so a prolonged bottleneck is the only possible scenario.

So, for that necessary genetic diversification to have large enough numbers to remain viable as a species and yet small enough in total numbers to best remain hidden from human observation, we're still talking about hundreds in terms of total species population based on simple models we find with other species of similar size, or even smaller size, all of which is relatively easily tracked, quantified, measured, and even interfered with to try to keep species alive. These are all obviously estimates, but roughly in line with plenty of larger large animal minimum requirements for necessary genetic diversification, and likely even on the low end of what would be required without human assistance protecting their status as endangered from other humans.

Now, to even feed that few, they would need resources. Even if they were just grass eaters, we'd probably be talking about a very broad territory that they'd need to roam, likely a significant chunk of the Pacific Northwest on both sides of the border. Especially as plenty of the supposed sighting take place within relative hiking distance of towns, we're not talking about way up north where nobody lives by the Yukon, we're talking about in southern British Columbia and in Washington and Oregon, plus let's throw in Alberta, Idaho, and Montana to give them as much room as possible and, theoretically, the most area in which to hide.

Only problem is that if we were talking about even only a few hundred spread over that large of an area, it's still a measurable impact on the local ecology that would be noticed by even high school geology teachers on field trip, boy scouts, and camp counselors. And in such numbers that sightings would be extremely common, like they are for other larger animals like bears and cougars and moose and elk, over even a broad stretch of territory where they have limited numbers, which would be noticed by locals, visitors, scientists, hunters, you name it.

So, here's the thing, we're talking about a number of scenarios, when looking at it logically, that uniformly dismiss the possibility of Bigfoot existing and somehow remaining hidden for all these years. If it's a very small population in a tiny, hidden area, resources would not be sufficient unless we're saying obscenely small numbers, and then the issue would be utter lack of genetic diversity leading to the likely eventual extinction of the race through inbreeding-related issues as the generations pass, so that model of a species probably would've already died out long, long ago. If it's a small population over a vast area, resources are less of an issue and theoretically possible to hide, but mating becomes extremely difficult given the distances involved without humans noticing the migratory patterns and likely mating grounds. And, on the other end, very large population that's very spread out means a species that would be as easy to detect as any other routine animal who cannot possibly hide from humans.

Nothing about the models of what we'd expect a Sasquatch species fits the mold of being simultaneously populous enough to be genetically viable, able to collect enough resources to remain sustainable, and somehow stay hidden enough to remain mostly the stuff of unconfirmed species.
Anyway your post ain't half bad, I think you got the population right, but I also think this:

- you seem to have an issue with them staying hidden, well people are seeing them, by the tens of thousands, so I don't know if I would say they are exactly staying hidden. If you mean capture then I would say you have to consider these creatures travel mostly at night, they smart enough to know that's the best time for it, and they are willing to go places that we don't go and can't.

- you also seem to underestimate how many reported sightings there have been, its probably in the tens of thousands, and then we got the unreported sightings. Has to be more unreported than reported. And easily.

- food shouldn't be an issue, they have been seen eating just about anything and they probably do, from plants and fruits to fish to meat. Bears have no problem surviving and they vastly out number them. The only issue I can see being is winter time.

- no offense but I have seen you're from Chicago, have you spent time in the outdoors and I'm no talking about camping parks with pop up tents, I mean roughing it, full backpacks and misery? I have, three and a half weeks in Oregon by the Three Sisters. No technology of ANY kind, no showers or baths, no clean clothes and not even toilet paper and our water from the creeks and rivers. And I can tell you unless you have done the same you can't appreciate not only the vast wilderness of North America but how terribly lonely it really is.

And its where you will never find school field trips or boy scouts.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 10:11 PM
  #97
Hanta Yo
Bag it up
 
Hanta Yo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
Les Stroud mentioned how people really underestimate just how empty and vast the North-West (Oregon/BC I suppose) forests up there can be. He himself had two separate instances where he saw/heard a massive ape like creature.

I still don't believe in it though, I just feel as though the odds are tremendously against it in regards to that after all this time, we've yet to come up with any rock hard evidence.

Hanta Yo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2012, 11:01 PM
  #98
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,157
vCash: 500
Great posts, Shogun

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 05:31 AM
  #99
Ronnie Bass
elite pissy upside
 
Ronnie Bass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 19,985
vCash: 500
Awards:
Before I head out to California here is some views from one of my favorite scientists Dr Todd Disotell, I think I mentioned in my first post that I had red flags regarding Ketchum's work and he pretty much nails my concerns on how she has gone about this and other concerns:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/12/dna-...oot-dna-claim/

He use to have a mohawk, I guess he got rid of it, the dude is rad.

Ronnie Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2012, 06:40 AM
  #100
TasteofFlames
Registered User
 
TasteofFlames's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,871
vCash: 500
In terms of conservation biology, the rule of thumb is 50/500. For the short term, an effective population (basically the number of breeding individuals expressed as a proportional average of male and females of (at least) 50 individuals is required to stave off the effects of inbreeding. In the long run, an effective population of 500 is required for mutation to create alleles at a rate that can counteract genetic drift.

Pulled from the space colonization page, but its the same model that you use in conservation biology/endangered species management. I have a final in my endangered species class in about 20 mins, trust me on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
Quote:
Researchers in conservation biology have tended to adopt the "50/500" rule of thumb initially advanced by Franklin and Soule. This rule says a short-term effective population size (Ne) of 50 is needed to prevent an unacceptable rate of inbreeding, while a long‐term Ne of 500 is required to maintain overall genetic variability. The N_e = 50 prescription corresponds to an inbreeding rate of 1% per generation, approximately half the maximum rate tolerated by domestic animal breeders. The N_e = 500 value attempts to balance the rate of gain in genetic variation due to mutation with the rate of loss due to genetic drift.
This means that there needs to be at least 500 Sasquatch within an area small enough for all 500 to be able to interact/breed. At the very least, a fragmented group of sub-populations close enough to allow for migration between groups. Anything less than that and the population doesn't have enough individuals to maintain genetic diversity over time.

TasteofFlames 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 01:59 PM.

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.