ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


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.
Tags bigfoot , dna , Ed Smith , Melba Ketchum

Reply
Old 26th August 2011, 08:53 PM   #361
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,273
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
I didn't say those animals are rare, I've speculated that whatever the hairs are from must be rare, atleast in that it's hairs are rarely submitted as unknowns to labs.




I said you could argue, but didn't say you would be arguing with me.

Yeah, I spent a couple days there out of curiousity, like many other groups and organizations. I had a look around and found evidence of something large dark and shaggy. I decided to test the hairs. If they are not bigfoot then it might explain the sightings as a misidentification. There's always that for an upside




You are asking the wrong person. If you found hair and was curious enough to have them examined, you wouldn't come asking me. If you want to assemble a comparison using the provided pics, have at it, just don't call it proof of anything without an experts opinion to back it up.

Though, any hair and fiber expert won't make a judgement based on a couple micrographs. There is the cuticle scale pattern, diameter, length, degree of wave, cross sectional shape, color, pigmentation density and distribution and medulla structures, when present to consider. Each species has some unique combination of all these atributes and with each atribute having a range of variability.

If this explanation is still needed after the paper is published then we'll pursue it further.
Sweaty, is that you?
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 08:59 PM   #362
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Do you really think these statements are true? If so, can you provide evidence that they are? Who makes these claims? What record do they have? There are a lot of tests that have been devised in science, education, medicine etc that just don't turn out to be very useful...they give too many false positives and false negatives to be helpful. And subjective issues are always problematic.
What good is it if the best expert in the world gets 73% correct? What good is it if the worst guy gets 32%? What if he's honest and says i dont know 68% of the time and you gaily pronounce 68% of all sample to be "unknown" wink wink bigfoot....SEND YOUR SAMPLES TO THIS GUY!! Great for business, unlike most fields where competence is valued. how do you know which guy you've got? Is he better on domestics in Oklahoma than wilds in Alaska?

Parn, where morphology is concerned, I'm amased at the extent of knowledge that is used to ID really old and degraded evidence. Here in this article the authors use scale pattern to identify probable human hair in 195k to 257k year old hyaena coprolite deposits from south africa. Thats just the scale pattern and some inference from the cross sectional shape.

I'll admit this is stretching the limits, but these authors would probably be my choice to ID primate hairs found here in the states.

http://unimelb.academia.edu/RobynPic...e_South_Africa
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 09:03 PM   #363
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
I've noted that skeptics are quick to call "bad science" when any "expert" finds the evidence in favor of BF.
This kind of deceptive wording establishes you as a manipulative discussant instead of having any kind of credibility.

Since there isn't one peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that supports the existence of bigfoot, there is by construction a 100% correlation between so-called "evidence of bigfoot" and bad science, according to science itself. You've reversed the method of science and the direction of causality in order to insinuate the opposite.

Of course, wording things deceptively and working by insinuation instead of saying it outright gives you plausible deniability. You didn't actually SAY so. It's just an innocent observation of yours. Anyone would be suspicious to see such a high correlation, and naturally it would cause us to suspect there's something really fishy going on.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 09:05 PM   #364
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Well if you went back in time 40k years and saw one in person, you might call it a cryptic hominid.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 09:11 PM   #365
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
so everything new is a cryptid.*
Guess my kids studied the wrong courses in college.

*pretty sure that's a tautology as well as a fallacy.
__________________
previously known as parnassus
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2011, 09:23 PM   #366
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
so everything new is a cryptid.*
Guess my kids studied the wrong courses in college.

*pretty sure that's a tautology as well as a fallacy.
How about it southern, are we know redefining cryptid?
Resume is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 06:35 AM   #367
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Is there anything about Denisovans that is still ambiguous difficult to observe or cryptic? How about it's hip joints? Jaw structure? can we reconstruct it's skull even?
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 08:16 AM   #368
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Is there anything about Denisovans that is still ambiguous difficult to observe or cryptic? How about it's hip joints? Jaw structure? can we reconstruct it's skull even?
Give it up, SY...
__________________
previously known as parnassus
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 10:02 AM   #369
ScannerHead
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 105
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
This kind of deceptive wording establishes you as a manipulative discussant instead of having any kind of credibility.

Of course, wording things deceptively and working by insinuation instead of saying it outright gives you plausible deniability. You didn't actually SAY so. It's just an innocent observation of yours.
And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.

the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.

then you all pile on to make a poster look stupid because something unknown has been defined as real, and all this guys point is, that dna CAN be used to find something that hasn't been found before.

call it a cryptid if you want, or don't. you don't disqualify his arguement because it is or isn't a cryptid. this is what makes people look foolish: trying to discredit someone else by pointing out things in other people's arguements that aren't the point. cryptid or not, a new discovery was made by finding NEW dna.

I can't believe the mods here let this kind of bullying go on.
ScannerHead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 11:02 AM   #370
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by ScannerHead View Post
And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.

the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.

then you all pile on to make a poster look stupid because something unknown has been defined as real, and all this guys point is, that dna CAN be used to find something that hasn't been found before.

call it a cryptid if you want, or don't. you don't disqualify his arguement because it is or isn't a cryptid. this is what makes people look foolish: trying to discredit someone else by pointing out things in other people's arguements that aren't the point. cryptid or not, a new discovery was made by finding NEW dna.

I can't believe the mods here let this kind of bullying go on.
Yeah it's all the fault of the mods and bullies that he came up with that and then tried to defend it. And oh by the way, you are the only one who's calling him stupid. The others just disagreed with his post. Big difference.
Listen, scanner, how about you come up with some body parts eg bones of Bigfoot like they did with Denisovan. Or are you trying to obscure the fact that they had body parts as well as DNA? (Whoops...didn't mean to bully you....)
__________________
previously known as parnassus

Last edited by DennyT; 27th August 2011 at 11:06 AM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 12:21 PM   #371
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by ScannerHead View Post
And YET, the skeptic can do exactly the same thing, and it's o.k.
Except that I was quoting an example of a bad faith argument whereas you have not. So it is an empty assertion of yours.

Again, manipulative argumentative tactics, which is what you have to resort to when there is no evidence to support your beliefs. How many times do we hear this refrain that skeptics are "doing the same thing" as 'footers.

I understand perfectly that the hope is to put skeptics on the defensive and hope they are dumb enough to attempt proving a negative when your obligation to provide positive evidence backing your assertion remains unfulfilled. It is also a very, very embarassing tactic when you actually think through the implied logic: It's fine for 'footers to use bogus science, bad faith, logical fallacies, etc - because someone else does it too.

This is again the magic of deceptive wording and insinuation instead of positively stating your argument. When you are forced to make a complete and clearly stated argument - it looks so bad that a child can see through it. "Gee whiz little Johnny, is it OK for the bad man to steal if he can point to someone else who also stole?" It is positively infantile. So the manipulative/bad faith discussant does what the six year old does: "nya nya nya, you do it too..." he doesn't say "Bigfoot exists because you are a hypocrite".


The skeptic, however, when it is pointed out his argument is bad or his evidence poor - he drops the bad argument and bad evidence. He does not say "nya nya nya, you do it too..." Or refuse to acknowledge the deficiency and take up another bad faith argument.

Quote:
the POINT IS someone or something was unknown to exist, but because of dna extracted from bone(s) showed something previously unknown, it was accepted.
Then there is absolutely no reason to inject bad faith manipulative arguments into anything. So I couldn't disagree more. The whole point is to slip these bad faith arguments in everywhere you can, because this is the theme of 'footery from beginning to end: hoaxes, logical fallacies, preying on ignorance, etc.


Quote:
then you all pile on... bullying
Playing the victim role, also a manipulative, bad faith argument. The more ridiculous your argument, the more important playing the victim becomes. Because the worse the argument, the more it will be attacked. It is also called "vilifying the victim" in manipulative literature.

In this context, the victim is the skeptic who has had a bad faith manipulative argument levied upon him. He complains. So he is villified by the manipulator when the blame clearly rests on the manipulator for having made a bad faith argument.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 12:52 PM   #372
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
Give it up, SY...
Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 06:03 PM   #373
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,685
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.
History seems to be on the skeptic's side, though. We've seen our share of pronouncements about bigfoot DNA tests. None have amounted to a hill of beans so far, iirc. Same for hair testing.

BTW, is there some reason we should accept what we are told?

For example, do I really know 1 & 2? Or am I just taking your word?
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 06:03 PM   #374
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.

Man, people are really putting a ton of faith in this report. I can't wait for it to come out.
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 06:19 PM   #375
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Deacondark View Post
Man, people are really putting a ton of faith in this report. I can't wait for it to come out.
Right?
Resume is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 06:43 PM   #376
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Nah, don't think I will, I'm just pointing to standards of acceptance of something new, and I do think they can be met with DNA and various bits of physical evidence for BF. Thats my point.

Here's some things you won't be able to claim when the DNA is published.

1. You don't know where any of the evidence comes from.
2. You don't know what sign was found in association with it.
3. You haven't seen the evidence to know it exists.
4. It hasn't been offered for independent testing.
5. Nobody would let you choose who to test it.
6. Nobody else has examined it.
7. The data isn't available for independent review.
Okay, whatever you say, you don't give it up, you just change it.
Wow, a numbered list. And you are claiming this all as fact?
(just giving you a chance to change it around.)
This list strikes me as somewhat akin to lists of Bigfoot's diet and social customs, except with some extra mind reading.
That aside, I guess you've read the paper? Yes or no?
__________________
previously known as parnassus

Last edited by DennyT; 27th August 2011 at 06:52 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 08:24 PM   #377
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
History seems to be on the skeptic's side, though. We've seen our share of pronouncements about bigfoot DNA tests. None have amounted to a hill of beans so far, iirc. Same for hair testing.
Yeah, it's consistent with cryptids until they are proven.

Quote:
BTW, is there some reason we should accept what we are told?

For example, do I really know 1 & 2? Or am I just taking your word?
Where and what sign. Well you'd expect that if I wanted to be deceptive I'd do better than that place and seemingly unimpressive damage to a cedar right? There is some documentation when it is needed.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2011, 08:34 PM   #378
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,685
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Yeah, it's consistent with cryptids until they are proven.



Where and what sign. Well you'd expect that if I wanted to be deceptive I'd do better than that place and seemingly unimpressive damage to a cedar right? There is some documentation when it is needed.
What cryptid has been proven?

So far, it's consistently been a load of codswallop with bigfoot.

But I suppose this could be an exception...
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 05:33 AM   #379
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
WP
She has a big series. She seems to have over a hundred specimens submitted by hopeful footers. Even if every one of them was by DNA a readily identified animal or human that would be very publishable. A slam dunk. It would not necessarily be pleasing to footers, but they would not give up. it would be appropriate for a number of journals. If it never appears in print it is totally by her choosing.

No I haven't read the paper parn, but do feel that my bigfoot chasing days atleast in the collection of evidence is nearing a big change. If the paper turns out like you suggest above then so be it. It will affect what faith I may have that there is any physical reality in bigfoot one way or the other. I'm interested in resolution not perpetuation. I also don't accept that bigfoot is 100% sapiens sapiens throughout. I don't think the hair I found came from any ordinary human.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 05:37 AM   #380
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
What cryptid has been proven?
Reports of sightings of an animal often preceed it's discovery and acceptance no? Don't tell me you need examples of this.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 09:23 AM   #381
RayG
Master Poster
 
RayG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,606
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Reports of sightings of an animal often preceed it's discovery and acceptance no? Don't tell me you need examples of this.
Don't sightings precede the discovery and acceptance of ALL animals?

When I think of cryptids, I'm thinking of things like bigfoot, Thunderbirds, Nessie, Mothman, mermaids, and reptilian politicians.

What are YOU thinking of when you think cryptids?

RayG
__________________
Tell ya what. I'll hold my tongue as long as you stick to facts.
--------------------
Scrutatio Et Quaestio
RayG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 09:44 AM   #382
drewid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,259
Reports of sightings, scat and skeletal remains.
drewid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 10:42 AM   #383
John Albert
Illuminator
 
John Albert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,143
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
Reports of sightings of an animal often preceed it's discovery and acceptance no? Don't tell me you need examples of this.

No, most newly-discovered animals weren't cryptids.

'Cryptids' are legendary creatures that have been rumored in folklore, which some people choose to believe are real despite a total lack of material evidence.
__________________
“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
—Mark Twain

Last edited by John Albert; 28th August 2011 at 10:43 AM.
John Albert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 12:52 PM   #384
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by John Albert View Post
No, most newly-discovered animals weren't cryptids.

'Cryptids' are legendary creatures that have been rumored in folklore, which some people choose to believe are real despite a total lack of material evidence.
Using the classification proposed by Eberhart it looks like bigfoot could go either way. The classifications do seem to include some proven species as cryptids. It looks as though one could argue that apemen are known from the fossil record and be considered a cryptid on the basis it is believed to have survived to present day. Or it could be argued to not be a cryptid because it is a bizzare human or wildman covered in hair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptid


George M. Eberhart of the American Library Association,[9] who has written for the Journal of Scientific Exploration on the difficulties of cataloging media materials about fringe science, classifies ten types of mystery animals under the cryptozoological umbrella:

Distribution anomalies [known animals reported outside their normal range, e.g. the anomalous big cats of the U.K.];
Undescribed, unusual, or outsized variations of known species [e.g. the giant anacondas reported from Amazonia or the spotted lions of East Africa];
Survivals of recently extinct species [e.g. Ivory Billed Woodpecker presumed extinct ca. 1960, or the Steller's Sea Cow presumed extinct ca. 1770, both of which are occasionally claimed to have survived to the present];
Survivals of species known only from the fossil record into modern times [e.g. the mokele-mbembe of central Africa, sometimes described as a living dinosaur];
Lingerlings, or survivals of species known from the fossil record much later into historical times than currently thought [e.g. the woolly mammoth, presumed extinct ca. 12,000 BCE but occasionally purported surviving into later eras];
Animals not known from the fossil record but related to known species [e.g. the Andean wolf or the striped manta-ray reported by William Beebe in the 1930s];
Animals not known from the fossil record nor related to any known species [e.g. North America's Bigfoot or most sea serpents];
Mythical animals with a zoological basis [e.g. the Griffin, partly inspired by dinosaur fossils of Central Asia];
Seemingly paranormal or supernatural entities with some animal-like characteristics [e.g. Mothman, Black Dogs or some fairies from folklore];
Known hoaxes or probable misidentifications [e.g. the Jackalope, an antlered rabbit created as a hoax or prank but possibly inspired by rabbits infected with Shope papilloma virus, which causes antler-like tumors].


Additionally, Eberhart argues for six exclusions from classification as a cryptid:

Insignificance. "Cryptids must be big, weird, dangerous or significant to humans in some way."
Lack of controversy. "Someone needs to observe a mystery animal and someone else needs to discredit the sighting. Cryptozoologists function as interventionists between witnesses and skeptical scientists."
Erratics. "The out-of-place alligator […] that turns up in an odd spot, undoubtedly through human agency, is not a zoological mystery […] [i]f someone discovers a new species of alligator that lives only in sewers, that is a different matter."
Bizarre humans [e.g. zombies]
Angels or demons […] "the paranormal or supernatural is admitted only if it has an animal shape (a werewolf sighting, which might involve a real dog or wolf, or a mystery canid)."
Aliens "[unless such extraterrestrials] arrived a long time ago and thus classify as residents."

Last edited by southernyahoo; 28th August 2011 at 12:54 PM.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th August 2011, 02:42 PM   #385
DennyT
Master Poster
 
DennyT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,566
Yeah but what about the sergeant at arms of the Far Rockaway minature golf association?
Maybe he differs on how to classify zombies, which would be crucial as far as I'm concerned, because of the number of zombies around. Would you agree?
__________________
previously known as parnassus

Last edited by DennyT; 28th August 2011 at 02:48 PM.
DennyT is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 02:59 PM   #386
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
And subjective issues are always problematic.
I agree!
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2011, 03:36 PM   #387
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,116
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
my bigfoot chasing days...
What do you actually do to "chase bigfoot"? List by order of import so that we can see what your top strategies are.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 05:27 PM   #388
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
We can discuss that when there is good reason for you to accept the methods are productive. Until then, it'll just be fodder.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 06:00 PM   #389
Deacondark
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
We can discuss that when there is good reason for you to accept the methods are productive. Until then, it'll just be fodder.

There is no reason to accept them as productive. If they were, you would have caught one.
Deacondark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2011, 07:56 PM   #390
AlaskaBushPilot
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,116
Nothing escapes the steel jaws of this crew. That wasn't the way I expected it to work out, but nevertheless on that slam dunk the backboard was shattered, Deacondark.

So we have someone alleging to "chase bigfoot around" who isn't even willing to say how he does it. As a research strategy it can't be beaten: nobody can find one, and everyone keeps their tactics for finding them a secret. A perfect storm of ignorance.

If we apply this strategy to known animals, I guess they become cryptids.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 12:54 AM   #392
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 15,685
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/int...es-ketchum.htm

Sounds like much ado about nothing for the sample Ketchum tested here. Basically it came back "unknown" and she ID'd it as non-human by looking at it.
__________________
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?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 05:29 AM   #393
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Nothing escapes the steel jaws of this crew. That wasn't the way I expected it to work out, but nevertheless on that slam dunk the backboard was shattered, Deacondark.

So we have someone alleging to "chase bigfoot around" who isn't even willing to say how he does it. As a research strategy it can't be beaten: nobody can find one, and everyone keeps their tactics for finding them a secret. A perfect storm of ignorance.

If we apply this strategy to known animals, I guess they become cryptids.
I didn't take the question was in good faith, since you lable my position as bad faith. The search for bigfoot evidence isn't any different than any other animal. It is that simple. I'm simply putting the evidence on the table. We have to use science to determine fact from fiction about what it is. I don't expect to see it here.
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 05:59 AM   #394
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,511
Nice please remove 394,395,396
Thnx
__________________
"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

Last edited by Drewbot; 31st August 2011 at 06:49 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:15 AM   #395
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,511
Trpl Post
__________________
"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

Last edited by Drewbot; 31st August 2011 at 06:49 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:23 AM   #396
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,511
Dbl Post
__________________
"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

Last edited by Drewbot; 31st August 2011 at 06:49 AM.
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:34 AM   #397
Drewbot
Illuminator
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,511
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
. The search for bigfoot evidence isn't any different than any other animal.
Except for the tactics used.

A bunch of guys on one hill with night vision goggles, howling into the night, hearing a 'reply' and getting all excited, is not how real animals are searched-for.

Wolverine researchers don't pass out from infra-sound attacks.

Pine Marten researchers don't enclose themselves in a pick up truck in a campground with non-working audio equipment and sit there shaking while the pine martens run roughshod over their vehicle.
__________________
"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
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:42 AM   #398
Volsquatch
Scholar
 
Volsquatch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by southernyahoo View Post
I didn't take the question was in good faith, since you lable my position as bad faith. The search for bigfoot evidence isn't any different than any other animal. It is that simple. I'm simply putting the evidence on the table. We have to use science Bigfoot Science to determine fact from fiction about what it is. I don't expect to see it here.
Fixed.

Volsquatch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 06:56 AM   #399
The Shrike
Master Poster
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by River View Post
What do you think about alpaca as a candidate?
If it turns out to be camelid, I'm gonna be immature and claim firsties from post 349!
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2011, 09:36 AM   #400
southernyahoo
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
If it turns out to be camelid, I'm gonna be immature and claim firsties from post 349!
Ahhh, but who's word would you take on that Shrike? Just anyones?
southernyahoo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

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
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.