billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 25, 2012 0:06:24 GMT -5
Of course it could be fascinating if samples collected in different areas over different times come back as unknown BUT related to each other
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 25, 2012 11:06:21 GMT -5
the real bottom line is, there is no dna evidence of any bf, and there won't be any time soon. and until there is, there is and won't be any proof that bf exists and just what it may be.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 27, 2012 23:35:18 GMT -5
The real bottom line seems to be that you believe you know the answer, so no need to test. I find this real confusing, because on another thread you are "defending" science for want of a better term then on this thread you seem to be against the scientific method.
I really don't understand why someone would be against this testing whether or not they believed in sasquatch etc.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 29, 2012 0:26:01 GMT -5
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 29, 2012 19:48:33 GMT -5
Interesting indeed.
I do have to ask a rather ... unsavory question: Do you think there may be a 'cover-up' of sort over this topic?
Before you think I drank too much of the kool-aid, here is a theory.
If indeed it is proven that early man mated with distinct various proto-human ancestors, then it wouldn't be difficult to then state that instead of having home-sapiens simply evolve to look differently across our main "races" (Caucasian, Asian, African etc), we are in reality a mixture of homo-sapiens and other distinct and diverse humans, that resulted in the existing diversity - we would really be difference genetic races.
Post WWII, there has been a huge reluctantcy to come up with such theories and I can see that mainstream science would not publish such results for fear of loosing funding, accusations of racism etc.
Maybe I am wrong, but that was the first thought that crossed my mind, it would be fodder for neo-nazi groups and the like, and I can see it being hushed up for such fears.
Richard
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 30, 2012 0:01:46 GMT -5
Richard Some scientist in China have advocated for years that there are two human species on earth. The Chinese and everyone else.
However I don't think there is a coverup at all
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on May 30, 2012 0:10:21 GMT -5
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 30, 2012 5:22:02 GMT -5
Richard Some scientist in China have advocated for years that there are two human species on earth. The Chinese and everyone else. That sounds like the start of a bad joke - "So 2 guys walk into a bar . . ." :-) R
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on May 30, 2012 10:58:49 GMT -5
The real bottom line seems to be that you believe you know the answer, so no need to test. I find this real confusing, because on another thread you are "defending" science for want of a better term then on this thread you seem to be against the scientific method. I really don't understand why someone would be against this testing whether or not they believed in sasquatch etc. not against them testing at all. but the reality is, it's not proving it's a bf. all these tests ever do is expose another hoax or show how silly some people are by turning in buffalo hair and other junk. it's like people thinking that a large print in the ground is proof of a bf. it's not. now show me what made that print and then we can start talking. but until then, that print is just a print.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on May 30, 2012 23:12:13 GMT -5
it's like people thinking that a large print in the ground is proof of a bf. it's not. now show me what made that print and then we can start talking. but until then, that print is just a print. The problem is - that SOMETHING must have made the footprint correct? I would think that having them spontaneously appear would be a greater mystery than something making them - correct? So if we can say something made them, the question is simply What? If a hoax can be ruled out, then what is left is that a creature did ... What that creature may be is obviously up for debate, but none the less, we must be able to agree that if a particular print didn't just randomly come into existence then it must have been made by something. If that something is not a person (i.e hoax) then what? ... the scientific method would require us to come up with an explanation ... the problem is that said explanation may be hard for some to swallow. Here is a very interesting read: www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.htmlIt discussed the morphology of some large prints. Basically, there appears to be far too much detail found in hundreds of prints to be either the product of very educated and long living hoaxers or something is making them. Richard
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Jun 2, 2012 11:51:31 GMT -5
it's like people thinking that a large print in the ground is proof of a bf. it's not. now show me what made that print and then we can start talking. but until then, that print is just a print. The problem is - that SOMETHING must have made the footprint correct? I would think that having them spontaneously appear would be a greater mystery than something making them - correct? So if we can say something made them, the question is simply What? If a hoax can be ruled out, then what is left is that a creature did ... What that creature may be is obviously up for debate, but none the less, we must be able to agree that if a particular print didn't just randomly come into existence then it must have been made by something. If that something is not a person (i.e hoax) then what? ... the scientific method would require us to come up with an explanation ... the problem is that said explanation may be hard for some to swallow. Here is a very interesting read: www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.htmlIt discussed the morphology of some large prints. Basically, there appears to be far too much detail found in hundreds of prints to be either the product of very educated and long living hoaxers or something is making them. Richard yes, i agree, something indeed made them. but if you are suggesting that is in any way evidence of bf then that is wrong. and there are numerous examples of people faking tracks. people fake crop-circles all the time. and they look very impressive and believable. and look at loch ness. one faked photo started the entire craze. and not just there, but across the world. unfortunately, tracks are the strongest thing that leads the bf belief. but tracks are also one of the weakest examples. tracks are nothing at all until it can be shown what made them.
|
|
Sheldon
Has opinions now!
Posts: 103
|
Post by Sheldon on Jul 30, 2012 4:22:46 GMT -5
tracks are nothing at all until it can be shown what made them. So how do you show what made them? You have to investigate and research the tracks, the locale of where said tracks occurred, those who found the tracks, etc. The point is they are evidence of something - that's where the work begins.
|
|
Sean V.
Has opinions now!
Alberta Sasquatch Researcher
Posts: 256
|
Post by Sean V. on Aug 1, 2012 15:37:56 GMT -5
people fake crop-circles all the time. and they look very impressive and believable. and look at loch ness. one faked photo started the entire craze. and not just there, but across the world. unfortunately, tracks are the strongest thing that leads the bf belief. but tracks are also one of the weakest examples. tracks are nothing at all until it can be shown what made them. Come on, get real. Only a true fool would even consider the idea that all Sasquatch tracks found to date have been faked by people. As for your Loch Ness example; one photograph did not start the whole craze. People had been talking about a "monster" living in that lake since early medieval times, perhaps even before that.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on Aug 1, 2012 16:37:44 GMT -5
Hi folks,
may I suggest to Duallie that before putting his mouth (fingers) in gear about footprints he should read and study the works of Dr Grover Krantz and Dr Jeff Meldrum. When it comes to footprint analyses and the study of footprints, these two gentlemen are at the top, and there are others as well with ton of knowledge on the subject.
Hoaxing of footprints have occurred, we know that, however there are ways to distinguish between what is real and what is not.
Stating that ALL footprints are the result of hoaxes is showing very limited knowledge on the subject.
Red
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on Aug 5, 2012 19:59:24 GMT -5
YoukonRed - I agree, but Duallie it seems has already make up his mind. It is a REALLY far stretch - in fact I would suggest absurd to believe that the tens of thousands of Bigfoot prints have ALL been faked.
If 1 and only 1 was not a fake, and not a misidentification, then we have proof that something unknown is roaming the woods. After all, like Ghost stories or UFOs all you need is 1 to be correct for the phenomena to exist. The same logic applies to BF.
The work of Krantz, Meldrum and others do point towards the authenticity of at least SOME prints, thus logic would indicate something other than man made them, and thus a viable creature.
Now, the question is this: Do you trust the work for Krantz and Meldrum? If YES, then BF does exist. If NO, then you aren't realy saying anything against BF.
My vote, given their body of work and a few papers I have read points to YES, I trust their research and judgement.
Your opinions and mileage may vary ... void where prohibited by law, and of no cash value.
Richard
|
|