|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
16th August 2013, 11:37 AM | #601 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 160
|
I'm not really seeing the difference though.. a large sturgeon was shot, and this is a possible explanation for Champ sightings. It is known that people put on Bigfoot costumes and hoax Bigfoot, this is one of the possible explanations for a Bigfoot sighting. At risk of furthering this off-topic side "discussion" .. what am I missing? In both cases we have evidence for alternative explanations rather than the conventional narrative from "cryptozoology"
|
16th August 2013, 12:02 PM | #602 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
The difference in this particular example is that one involves a real live animal. It's easy to see how a seven-foot-plus, 240-pound creature in the water could be embellished into a "lake monster". There's no such nugget of truth to embroider upon in Bigfootery (unless you count misidentified bears).
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
4th September 2013, 09:04 PM | #603 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
|
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY "I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY |
|
4th September 2013, 10:18 PM | #604 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,594
|
He still doesn't get the burden of proof thing, while pretending to support a scientific approach to the analysis of this hoax?
|
__________________
Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite |
|
5th September 2013, 01:31 AM | #605 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,342
|
The film developing timeline proves the film and the story around it a hoax. No need to bother with what the subject is.
|
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt |
|
5th September 2013, 04:58 PM | #606 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business!
Posts: 1,877
|
Bill "Chewy" Munns: "That's the science I want to see, and neither you nor any other skeptic will provide it. I'm so sick and tired of you pathetic skeptics always providing a rubber chicken and never a real one. Therefore Bigfoot LIVES until I see a real chicken. After all, I AM the king!"
|
__________________
"If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro |
|
5th September 2013, 05:20 PM | #607 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 343
|
Imagine if Bill were a defense attorney...
"In order to find my client guilty, you must prove, using a scientific structure and actual evidence and analysis, that every one of the other 7 billion residents of Earth did not murder the victim. That's the science I want to see, and neither you nor any other prosecutor will provide it." |
5th September 2013, 05:24 PM | #608 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Has any biologist in range calculated the probability of fecal matter freely flowing from B. Munn's oral cavity? I am guessing 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% or so.....
|
11th September 2013, 09:45 AM | #609 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 199
|
Any chance someone can copy/paste or copy/PM that list of probability factors. It's been a long time since I saw them, and I always thought they were nothing more than arbitrary ideas plucked from the air (for the most part) to whittle down the probability that Patty was a suit. I think I got in trouble over there by making up some equally silly examples and suggesting he add them in to make Patty even more real. "Most creature suits are sewn by women, Patterson was a man; BAM, down to one in a zillion!"
|
15th September 2013, 06:41 AM | #610 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the analysis done by Mr. Munns on the PG film isn't highly regarded within these forums.
Hypothetical question for the group. If Mr. Munns were to have his analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, would that change the prevailing opinion of his work? |
15th September 2013, 07:20 AM | #611 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
15th September 2013, 07:43 AM | #612 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
15th September 2013, 07:49 AM | #613 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,661
|
I think that's exactly what most of us have been asking for. Real science, not the tomfoolery that bigfoot proponents engage in.
That's the reason footers like Munns, Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Ketchum, Krantz, Bindernagel, Nelson, and a boatload of others aren't taken seriously. They don't engage in real science when it comes to bigfoot. They produce books, charts, reports, drawings, or hypothetical pronouncements, but they never produce them in actual peer-reviewed scientific journals. You know why? Because the evidence they present sucks. RayG |
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts. -------------------- Scrutatio Et Quaestio |
|
15th September 2013, 08:00 AM | #614 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Non-hypothetical response for the group. If anyone were to have his CT analysis pass peer review and be published in a legitimate scientific journal, it would change the prevailing opinion of his work.
Strangely, that's never happened. |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
15th September 2013, 08:04 AM | #615 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 762
|
|
15th September 2013, 08:28 AM | #616 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
That would mean that Bill Munns would have proven to the world that Bigfoot exists and the mainstream scientific community would be simultaneously on-board with that.
Regardless of what Munns might tell you his thesis with The Munns Report is that Bigfoot exists and the PGF visually proves the thesis to be accurate. Positive peer review would have to support that thesis. So your hypothetical question really is... If mainstream science accepted that Bigfoot exists - would you? |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
15th September 2013, 08:36 AM | #617 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 594
|
I think this is overstating it. Passing peer review, even in a journal like Nature, does not mean that mainstream science is onboard with the findings. It only means that the particular results submitted are documented well enough to conclude they are methodologically sound, and they are interesting enough to publish.
At most, if Munns got past peer review, that would mean legitimate scientists ought to take a serious look at his work. It would make sense for footers to demand a response. Until then, responses on blogs and internet forums are adequate to address the claims. |
15th September 2013, 08:43 AM | #618 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Of course besides that, it would be some kind of bizarre charade for science to simply accept and approve the thesis of Bigfoot existing with the PGF being the evidence without a very thorough examination of Bob Gimlin. After all he would be the only living witness to the photographed "type specimen". It makes no sense whatsoever to leave Gimlin out of the science. His testimony and ability to survive examination (for dishonesty) is absolutely critical for making scientific proclamations about the natural world.
IOW, Gimlin needs to be not a con man peddling a hoax film. Munns cannot speak for Gimlin and expect the world to go along for that ride. |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
15th September 2013, 12:31 PM | #619 |
This title intentionally left blank
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
|
If Munns managed to get past a peer review and get published, it would definitely cause me to question my previously held belief that there isn't a chance in hell that Bigfoot exists. If another, reputable scientist were able to reproduce Munn's results and mainstream science were to accept Bigfoot's existence, then I'd change my mind on the subject and accept Bigfoot's existence as well.
There is a 0% chance that this will ever happen though, because Munn's work is a steaming load of gerry-mandered, cherry-picked crap. If any reputable scientist were ever tempted to reproduce Munns' results, they would find and report all the flaws in his work that lead him to his false conclusions. It's in Munns' best interest to make sure that no reputable scientist ever endeavors to do so. The fact that no one who doubts that the PGF is 100% genuine will ever get their hands on the original footage guarantees that no reputable scientist will ever be able to even attempt to reproduce Munns' work. Munns will never be peer-reviewed or published by design. |
16th September 2013, 09:36 PM | #620 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
Source:
Quote:
Bill, I do find it a little odd that you would do this to begin with. (there aren't any female x-rays available for study anywhere now?) But if you must, why not try to find "models" that actually need x-rays for some reason or another so you can help someone instead of randomly exposing someone to radiation for your experiments. Just a suggestion. |
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY "I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY |
|
17th September 2013, 05:23 AM | #621 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 06:44 AM | #622 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
I don't know what his plans are but is Bill somehow able to position his report so that peers who review are likely to already be Bigfoot believers? The year 2013 seems a bit late to be having Bigfoot skeptics suddenly say that by golly the PGF does show a Bigfoot.
Will it be reviewed by mainstream anthropologists and primatologists? |
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
17th September 2013, 06:48 AM | #623 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
17th September 2013, 06:49 AM | #624 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 06:51 AM | #625 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
It has been reviewed by a Plastic Surgeon.
I do not know if this person is on the editorial board at the Relict Hominoid Inquiry http://www.isu.edu/rhi/board.shtml |
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 06:54 AM | #626 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
17th September 2013, 06:59 AM | #627 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Bill claims that the film shows a new species of bipedal ape and then it's reviewed by a plastic surgeon? WTF is that? Surgeons aren't even scientists. Maybe next it will be reviewed by a golf course groundskeeper.
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
17th September 2013, 06:59 AM | #628 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 07:02 AM | #629 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 07:05 AM | #630 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,712
|
There is nothing "A little odd" about trying to irradiate women. They have plenty of health issues requiring regular XRAY screenings, and attempting to get them to be subject to additional XRAYS, is a revolting idea to me. As far as helping people who need Xrays, will Bill get to interview them first, what if they don't match the body type, He should just ignore those, and buy Xrays for the women who fit his requirements?
|
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic |
|
17th September 2013, 07:07 AM | #631 |
Show me the monkey!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26,646
|
Adipose tissue? I thought that Patty was supposed to be a Bigfoot and instead his paper is about tissues? WTF is that?
|
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot. |
|
17th September 2013, 07:20 AM | #632 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 21,423
|
|
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? |
|
17th September 2013, 07:27 AM | #633 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Inland NW
Posts: 4,942
|
|
__________________
Normal in a weird way. |
|
17th September 2013, 08:23 AM | #634 |
Now. Do it now.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
|
|
17th September 2013, 09:12 AM | #635 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
|
|
17th September 2013, 10:01 AM | #636 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,962
|
|
__________________
"I've seen more Bigfoot creatures than Mountain Lions and Wolves combined here in KY." ― ChrisBFRPKY "I've observed 1 creature eating bark from a pine tree and enjoying like it was cotton candy." ― ChrisBFRPKY |
|
17th September 2013, 10:43 AM | #637 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,783
|
Proving the PGF shows a real Bigfoot is like putting the cart before the horse. With the horse being an actual Bigfoot. I know Bill is putting a lot of effort into this, but I find it hard to believe that a paper published in a Bigfoot based journal will have much effect on the status of the PGF. It might make for an interesting read though. In the mean time I'll read more of Mulder's comedy about how Bigfoot has already been proven to exist
|
17th September 2013, 11:53 AM | #638 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
|
^^ Mulder is funny. Especially when he gets on his show me the evidence, of equal or greater weight, that there is NO Bigfoot kick. Equal or greater weight? What is this a barter system? You give me 8 eye witness reports, a few ambiguous tracks and some dog hair and I have to counter it with what exactly....?
|
17th September 2013, 12:05 PM | #639 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
Well, if campfire stories are scientific evidence, then bigfoot has been proven to exist. And mermaids. And fairies. And chupawhatsits, and oh, Elvis is still alive.
But campfires stories are not scientific evidence, no matter how many times someone insists they are. |
17th September 2013, 12:14 PM | #640 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,738
|
^^ You're preaching to the choir on that one Resume. I am being lynch mobbed right now in a thread for pointing out that simple fact. It seems all one needs to do is wander around the wilderness long enough and you can spout just about anything you want as fact. As if sleeping under the stars confers on one the ability to pronounce Bigfoot real.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|