5Likes
August 2nd, 2013, 04:11 PM
There seems to be people out there seriously obsessed with the bigfoot, this is what about the 20th such thread in last few months. Can we mix it up a bit at least, maybe a few more werewolf or a even a few Loch Ness Monster threads just so we are being fair to all these myths.
My serious opinion?
The final line of the article says it all. (Unless you want to read the quite amusing comments.)all indications suggest that the sasquatch hunters are working on a mix of human DNA intermingled with that of some other (or several other) mammals.
"conclusively proves." lol, nice!
Presumably, in your blind enthusiasm, once again you failed to read anything other than the headline? Not quite as embarrassing for you as your last thread, but we have had this discussion before: bad science, done badly and so the only way they could get it published was to create their own journal for it.Originally Posted by WVBIG
Id comment but everything hs pretty much been said already, either here or in the massive Sasquatch thread from a couple of years ago. They do not exist.
deleted: too mean.
Last edited by Strange; August 3rd, 2013 at 03:23 AM.
That was my assumption too, especially when I saw Dr. Ketchum was charging $30 to read the paper. But since this journal has picked it up & Wikipedia doesn't say the normal things about the journal being for way out ideas, I'm starting to wonder if maybe there actually is something to it. She claims Dr. Todd Dissotel automatically assumed every bit of human DNA he found in the samples she submitted, was the result of contaminationPresumably, in your blind enthusiasm, once again you failed to read anything other than the headline? Not quite as embarrassing for you as your last thread, but we have had this discussion before: bad science, done badly and so the only way they could get it published was to create their own journal for it.
When you say "this journal" what are you referring to? The only journal that has published this is Ketchum's own.
That would be my assumption as well. (Given the general quality of scientific process on display. "I know how I can get it through peer review: I'll review it myself!")She claims Dr. Todd Dissotel automatically assumed every bit of human DNA he found in the samples she submitted, was the result of contamination
I thought there was no room for assumption in the scientific process?When you say "this journal" what are you referring to? The only journal that has published this is Ketchum's own.
That would be my assumption as well. (Given the general quality of scientific process on display. "I know how I can get it through peer review: I'll review it myself!")She claims Dr. Todd Dissotel automatically assumed every bit of human DNA he found in the samples she submitted, was the result of contamination
WVBIG, sasquatch is my backyard beast, and I know the Native cultures and history fairly well.
There's more to this myth in the same way there's more to Santa Claus than just whether or not he's real. Can you look beyond the surface please to understand what I'm about to explain? Sasquatch, or really the wild-man idea serves a social function. Like how in many families the most expensive toys at Christmas come "from Santa", Sasquatch is told to children, or polite company, to save people from embarrassment. The embarrassed people are the Natives of British Columbia. The source of their embarrassment is the disgustingly high rates of severe alcoholism and drug abuse on reserves, in recent history. It's embodied by losers who skulk outside their communities. Feral people are still common enough that we've all encountered their trails, their weird nests, heard the uncanny roars they emit when they've gone zombie from solvents, in the woods. But why cover it up with a sasquatch story? The reason is that these are our uncles and our brothers who are outlaws and outcasts. We're ashamed. We can't explain this to our children.
Reading comprehension problems again?
I'm not a scientist. I am not writing a peer-reviewed paper. You asked for opinions. I am giving my opinion based on what I know of the difficulties involved in handling samples for genetic testing.
When you say "this journal" what are you referring to? The only journal that has published this is Ketchum's own.
WVBig, Ketchum et al purposely bought and renamed an existing magazine when they could not get a regular peer reviewed journal to print their article. There is no evidence her article ever went through peer review.
I know that & I told others the same thing. She even made a post on Facebook awhile back, claiming some scientist agreed with her & when I tried to Google him to see what his credentials were, I couldn't even find evidence that anyone by that name even exists. But I didn't read this article closely enough & thought they were backing her up. Are you saying there is no evidence her study passed peer review or no evidence it was even submitted for peer review?
Since your own link states the team behind this startling research had some trouble publishing a paper describing their results it appears that it was submitted.
So it could be that they did submit it for review, and it failed. Or possibly it was rejected before that.
Either way - the only "peer review" that it did pass was from the editors/ owners of the magazine it was published in.
And that magazine just happens to be the one that was bought by... the authors of the paper.
That's what I was thinking. The delays were caused by the multiple rejections. This paper was suppose to be out a couple years ago, at leastSince your own link states the team behind this startling research had some trouble publishing a paper describing their results it appears that it was submitted.
So it could be that they did submit it for review, and it failed. Or possibly it was rejected before that.
Either way - the only "peer review" that it did pass was from the editors/ owners of the magazine it was published in.
And that magazine just happens to be the one that was bought by... the authors of the paper.
Look prooooooof! someone caught one on camera, they must real!
I'm glad you posted this pic. I don't know how many pieces of video I've seen where the alleged Bigfoot has a head like this, which of course is made to accomodate the forehead of the human in the costume. If you look at the enlargement of the head of the subject of the Patterson Gimlin film, you'll see it starts sloping back almost immediately above the brow ridge like a gorilla's headLook prooooooof! someone caught one on camera, they must real!
And if you look at population biology you see that its not possible for there to be a larger then human size primate living in North America undiscovered by science.
I have lived in the Pacific Northwest for years .......and we even have places called "Big Foot". "Big Foot" is a legend in people's minds. There have been multitudes of film shot, etc, to prove the existence, and none yet has been proven to be fact. Usually fake.
Many cultures have their special "legends" based on story not on fact. "Big Foot" aka "Sasquatch" has been a legend of stories since I have lived here for 36 years and my husband for his entire lifetime. The legend started long ago, as did the "sightings".
It is a lovely and fun story for around a campfire, but there has never been proof of "Big Foot" found in California, Oregon, Washington or BC to my knowledge.
Steven, we have been over the Patterson Gimlin film exhaustively before and in virtually in every detail. There is just nothing close to being convincing of it being authentic. We have been over the gait, estimates of hight, supposed muscles ripples, the sloping forehead, the length and depth of the tracks, etc, etc, etc. There is serious doubt about all of it. Do you really still think it was a real Bigfoot in that film?
I have absolutely no doubt that it's authentic. Here is a link to an ongoing analysis of the film by Bill Munns. Bill Munns is a special effects costuming expert & a photogrametry expert. homeSteven, we have been over the Patterson Gimlin film exhaustively before and in virtually in every detail. There is just nothing close to being convincing of it being authentic. We have been over the gait, estimates of hight, supposed muscles ripples, the sloping forehead, the length and depth of the tracks, etc, etc, etc. There is serious doubt about all of it. Do you really still think it was a real Bigfoot in that film?
Selective perception.
I'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
And yet for years you have ignored the population dynamics and lack of fossil evidence problemsI'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
He has come up with a variety of what he thinks are viable explanations, including that they are just very good at hiding and that they actively bury their dead under huge rocks.And yet for years you have ignored the population dynamics and lack of fossil evidence problemsI'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
I remember. None are really viable options, and as problems with each were pointed out, he would come up with more elaborate reasons why.He has come up with a variety of what he thinks are viable explanations, including that they are just very good at hiding and that they actively bury their dead under huge rocks.And yet for years you have ignored the population dynamics and lack of fossil evidence problemsI'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
The North American Great Ape Project by Dr. Meldrum & Dr. Myonczinski determined there is enough food sources for a breeding population of geat apes in North America. As for ignoring the fossil record, I remind you of the fossil record of Chimpanzees & then there is this: Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong - YouTubeI remember. None are really viable options, and as problems with each were pointed out, he would come up with more elaborate reasons why.He has come up with a variety of what he thinks are viable explanations, including that they are just very good at hiding and that they actively bury their dead under huge rocks.And yet for years you have ignored the population dynamics and lack of fossil evidence problemsI'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
Can you provide a link to their peer-reviewed paper(s) on this?
You mean this, for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04008.htmlI remind you of the fossil record of Chimpanzees
what is your point?
You are determined not to be taken seriously, aren't you.then there is this: Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong - YouTube
The North American Great Ape Project by Dr. Meldrum & Dr. Myonczinski determined there is enough food sources for a breeding population of geat apes in North America. As for ignoring the fossil record, I remind you of the fossil record of Chimpanzees & then there is this: Lloyd Pye - Everything You Know Is Wrong - YouTubeI remember. None are really viable options, and as problems with each were pointed out, he would come up with more elaborate reasons why.He has come up with a variety of what he thinks are viable explanations, including that they are just very good at hiding and that they actively bury their dead under huge rocks.And yet for years you have ignored the population dynamics and lack of fossil evidence problemsI'll bet you didn't even look at the link. THAT is selective perception
Show the calculations here, and show why exactly NO specimens have been found. A viable breeding population WOULD be found very quickly. Im not talking about food sources, Im talking visibility of several thousand giant apes in very close proximity to humans.
What's your point here?
Deluded dishonest cranks are ten a penny.
NO, you missed something!!!Steven, we have been over the Patterson Gimlin film exhaustively before and in virtually in every detail. There is just nothing close to being convincing of it being authentic. We have been over the gait, estimates of hight, supposed muscles ripples, the sloping forehead, the length and depth of the tracks, etc, etc, etc. There is serious doubt about all of it. Do you really still think it was a real Bigfoot in that film?
That was me in the morning the one time I had too much wine, including the sloping forehead.
Oh yeah. Making wisecracks is so much more scientific than actually checking things out. If I hadn't had my own sighting, I'd be willing to consider the possibility that Bigfoot doesn't exist. EXCEPT for skeptics like you. Want me to stop beleiving Bigfoot exists? Explain my sighting in an area no one knew I would be at. It wasn't a bear. I've seen plenty of them. If it was just a case of a hoaxers dumb luck, why didn't he keep doing it until he got some attention for it?NO, you missed something!!!Steven, we have been over the Patterson Gimlin film exhaustively before and in virtually in every detail. There is just nothing close to being convincing of it being authentic. We have been over the gait, estimates of hight, supposed muscles ripples, the sloping forehead, the length and depth of the tracks, etc, etc, etc. There is serious doubt about all of it. Do you really still think it was a real Bigfoot in that film?
That was me in the morning the one time I had too much wine, including the sloping forehead.
You didn't take a video?Oh yeah. Making wisecracks is so much more scientific than actually checking things out. If I hadn't had my own sighting, I'd be willing to consider the possibility that Bigfoot doesn't exist. EXCEPT for skeptics like you. Want me to stop beleiving Bigfoot exists? Explain my sighting in an area no one knew I would be at. It wasn't a bear. I've seen plenty of them. If it was just a case of a hoaxers dumb luck, why didn't he keep doing it until he got some attention for it?NO, you missed something!!!Steven, we have been over the Patterson Gimlin film exhaustively before and in virtually in every detail. There is just nothing close to being convincing of it being authentic. We have been over the gait, estimates of hight, supposed muscles ripples, the sloping forehead, the length and depth of the tracks, etc, etc, etc. There is serious doubt about all of it. Do you really still think it was a real Bigfoot in that film?
That was me in the morning the one time I had too much wine, including the sloping forehead.
I mean if you want to prove it, then you should have taken out your IPHONE and video'd it?
I don't believe in Big Foot.....and I have been here 36 years.....my husband since birth, his father, since birth..his grandfather and his great grandfather...and we have roamed the forests and hunted...and have yet to know anyone who has REALLY seen Sasquatch.
It will remain a mystery...a great myth, which does delight those who live here, without doubt, but just a wonder story.
I am not making fun of you. I may tease people, but I don't demean them.
I just think Sasquatch isn't science....
Babe, sasquatch wasn't conceived by white folks around campfires; it was devised by civilized Natives to explain savages.
The existence, or non-existence, of Bigfoot can be viewed in two ways.
1) What evidence is there for Bigfoot?
2) What evidence is there against Bigfoot?
The evidence for is inadequate, consisting as it does of anecdotal material, disputed film and highly questionable tracks. Taken in total this evidence is very weak, but suggests that some phenomenon is present. (Note: that phenomenon may be human gullibility.)
The evidence against is substantial, but not overwhelming. It is circumstantial. That said, any counter to this evidence would need to explain in a plausible and verifiable manner how a breeding population could survive without significant observation, or why no remains are ever found.
On balance, despite a very strong wish that they did exist, I think the balance of probability is a strong No. However, each new sighting, or suspect artifact should be viewed objectively and not on the basis that 'they don't exist'.
Finally! A reasonable skeptic here. Thank you
But will you at any point look objectively at the evidence against the existence WVBig?Finally! A reasonable skeptic here. Thank you
I always do. Just because I think Lloyd Pye is onto something with his claim that remains of alleged early humans are actually the remains of bipedal apes, doesn't mean I'm not objective. He makes some very good points about the thickness of the bones & width of the jawsBut will you at any point look objectively at the evidence against the existence WVBig?Finally! A reasonable skeptic here. Thank you
Thats because early humans were STILL evolving from more ape like ancestors. Pye is a writer, not a biologist and does not understand the biology involved. He also firmly insists that we are only here due to alien manipulation.I always do. Just because I think Lloyd Pye is onto something with his claim that remains of alleged early humans are actually the remains of bipedal apes, doesn't mean I'm not objective. He makes some very good points about the thickness of the bones & width of the jawsBut will you at any point look objectively at the evidence against the existence WVBig?Finally! A reasonable skeptic here. Thank you
Yes, I know. I have friends in the tribes. However, that said, it has been perpetuated by the "White Man", so to speak.
However, Pong.....it was devised around campfires. They really didn't have an alternative.
Using the word "civilized" would imply that people were more advanced beyond the days of campfires as an only means of survival. I took "savage" to mean the opposite of civilized, meaning living wild in the woods outside of normal social structures of our species.
sourcecivilized past participle, past tense of civ·i·lize (Verb)
Verb
Bring (a place or people) to a stage of social, cultural, and moral development considered to be more advanced: "a civilized society".
Polite and well-mannered.
source1
a : not domesticated or under human control : untamed <savage beasts>
b : lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings : fierce, ferocious <a savage criminal>
2
: wild, uncultivated <seldom have I seen such savage scenery — Douglas Carruthers>
3
a : boorish, rude <the savage bad manners of most motorists — M. P. O'Connor>
b : malicious
4
: lacking complex or advanced culture : uncivilized <a savage country>
Right. And every civilization has always had some savages (outlaws, outcasts, hermits, etc. ) skulking the fringes. The region with most concentrated Native population, quite suddenly staggered with alcoholism and dispersed from their homes, gave birth to sasquatch. Natives who retained their civilization, or adapted to the new, couldn't entirely ignore those who got lost in the transition. So to answer your child about that weird hooting in the forest, that might be her uncle, of course you lie. You'd lie to the Mounties too, and anyone else who asks.
Seems most savages today are a subset of the urban homeless. We say they have serious mental health and/or substance abuse issues... which was true enough long before we coined the terms.
| « Is gravity merely thrust? | Fight club life lessons and philosophy » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
