|
Post by therizinosaurus on Nov 17, 2008 5:04:14 GMT
I'd love to answer your questions with sources, but I don't have access to a computer now (I'm on my phone). I'll respond in the morning, okay?
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Nov 17, 2008 5:10:33 GMT
Guys, just a reminder, please keep it civil (and no, I'm not pointing my finger at anyone, I just don't want you to fight) I do have a hard time believing all that stuff about Sasquatch, sadly we have seen too many hoaxes
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Nov 17, 2008 6:23:21 GMT
Guys, just a reminder, please keep it civil (and no, I'm not pointing my finger at anyone, I just don't want you to fight) I do have a hard time believing all that stuff about Sasquatch, sadly we have seen too many hoaxes I agree. I believe, but I'm so disappointed we have no corpses to back up this claim. Maybe the sasquatch bury their dead? ;D ;D OMG stonage no!!!!!!!!!!! They are after me? NOOOO AHHHHHHHH They've got me leg! ;D I agree with theri though, the forest is so massive, and apes are so smart (Bigfoot might possibly be as smart a human) that they shouldn't have much trouble avoiding us. Maybe they are smart enough to avoid bight lights. Maybe all these big foot claims aren't ALL hoaxes. You have to start somewhere right?
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 13:29:09 GMT
Guys, just a reminder, please keep it civil (and no, I'm not pointing my finger at anyone, I just don't want you to fight) I do have a hard time believing all that stuff about Sasquatch, sadly we have seen too many hoaxes I agree. I believe, but I'm so disappointed we have no corpses to back up this claim. Maybe the sasquatch bury their dead? ;D ;D OMG stonage no!!!!!!!!!!! They are after me? NOOOO AHHHHHHHH They've got me leg! ;D I agree with theri though, the forest is so massive, and apes are so smart (Bigfoot might possibly be as smart a human) that they shouldn't have much trouble avoiding us. Maybe they are smart enough to avoid bight lights. Maybe all these big foot claims aren't ALL hoaxes. You have to start somewhere right? When you have to start making excuses to avoid a more obvious conclusion (hoaxes or mistaken identities) then things have to become suspect. Fact is, living apes are not common, and they are from thicker jungles than North American ones. Yet they have been found (obviously). Second, other than humans, the last record of any wild primate in North America was in the late Eocene at best, and those were no apes.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 17, 2008 13:42:11 GMT
Regarding the Patterson film, once the image is stabilized (see below) it seems obvious that it is a big fellow in a suit. You can see the crudely produced flat pads on the feet. The suit looks like a nappy around the waist and on the butt - the legs and torso join along obvious junctures. I can just about make out the zipper.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 14:34:49 GMT
Regarding the Patterson film, once the image is stabilized (see below) it seems obvious that it is a big fellow in a suit. You can see the crudely produced flat pads on the feet. The suit looks like a nappy around the waist and on the butt - the legs and torso join along obvious junctures. I can just about make out the zipper. More importantly--no primate has a furred face like that. And the posture is all wrong except for a person.
|
|
|
Post by therizinosaurus on Nov 17, 2008 15:02:51 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm back! I'll try to respond to each post, but if I miss one forgive me, there's a lot. Stoneage: Jeff Meldrum is the Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. He has acknowledged unknown DNA. Loren Coleman, who has a MSW and is educated in anthropology and zoology, and is a published author. There are other scientists who acknowledge it, too. Also, before the gorilla was discovered, it was rumored for 100 years (bigfoot has only been rumored for 50). About 5 individual gorillas were killed, but not one was kept as a trophy. Some were in remote parts of the forest, some were too big, and some rotted. Tomhet: You're right, there have been hoaxes and that has deterred many people, yet there are some instances where hoaxes are not only implausible but physically impossible. Tyrannax: You're also right. This isn't a bear we're talking about. This is something very similar to us that demonstrates it can think at an almost human level. Maybe they're not being seen because they don't want to be seen. Sbell (1st post) : Africa and Asia have been inhabited by Westerners far longer than North America. Also, despite there not being North American monkeys, there were Asian giant apes until recently (Gigantopithecus, anyone?) It would have been easy for them to cross the Bering Land Bridge in the same way us humans did. For the other posts, you know how I feel on the Patterson Film. See the other thread. The face is not furred, it is black skin. Only one man claimed to have been in the suit, and he could produce no evidence (no suit, no pictures, nothing). The article that was published on him was filled with typos and factual errors, so I find it hard to take seriously. The posture is definitely not human. There is a knee herniation, which is a medical condition a suit would not produce. I hope that helps answer all of your questions! Theri
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 16:13:17 GMT
You did not actually answer any questions--you either agreed with others (like the bear thing) or danced around--why would an Asian fossil taxa for which we have evidence somehow provide support for non-evidenced species from North America? I could just as easily say the Sasquatch is really an orangutan that crossed the berengia crossing--after all, they are in Asia. And easy to cross? Do you see macaques around here? Or mongooses? Or civets? These are highly adaptable survivor species, yet they never made it across. That crossing was not easy--in particular for apes, which tend to be fruit and forest specialists--both of which tend to be rare in arctic areas.
Or danced around by claiming that there are instances where hoaxes/explanations are impossible--name one. Or is this like the Crop Circle thing--no matter how many times people film themselves doing it, there is a small fraction of people that insist that 'some' could not be anthropogenic--only to move the proverbial goal posts when shown otherwise. If something exists, by definition it cannot defy explanation--it just means no one has looked for the answer properly yet.
And I warn you about claiming that reasonable scientists have produced indeterminate (genetically) samples. It really indicates a lack of understanding about how genetic testing works--all the 'indeterminate' really means is that it did not match the samples of known materials used in the comparisons--but no scientist is ever going to be able to use comparison materials of the known available taxa in the area, instead using the obvious possibilities (usually bear, moose, deer, bison, dog/wolf, etc). That means leaving out things like wolverine, fisher, marten, various rodents, etc. Ever smelled a wolverine or a fisher? Not pleasant. And probably not an animal that would come to mind if someone stumbled upon a smelly tangle of fur--and definitely the last thing someone would think of if they were trying to prove the existence of a living giant ape. Like Jeff Meldrum, whose entire career is focused on proving the existence; or Loren Coleman, who is pretty much a celebrity because of cryptozoology, and I'm guessing would be rather biased to keep the possibility alive. When we ask for reasonable scientists, we mean people that do not have a vested, often personal, interest in proving these things are real. The fact is that most of the time, when an unbiased researcher performs tests, they can usually determine a more mundane provenance (as was done at the University of Alberta--turned out to be a bison sample).
Point blank--this is a pointless discussion. It comes down to proof, and there is none. No real tracks, no carcasses, no conclusive photographs, not even fossils/subfossils that something like this was here (never mind is). Bringing this up again just brings up the same points you cannot answer--why is there still no evidence of any definitive kind?
Perhaps this discussion belongs in a blog or forum where this is normally a topic of discussion--honestly, this will just keep circling around.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 17, 2008 16:39:41 GMT
Hey everyone, I'm back! I'll try to respond to each post, but if I miss one forgive me, there's a lot. Stoneage: Jeff Meldrum is the Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. He has acknowledged unknown DNA. Which is categorically evidence for nothing, let alone a bigfoot. What is the DNA most closely related to?Loren Coleman, who has a MSW and is educated in anthropology and zoology, and is a published author. There are other scientists who acknowledge it, too. Also, before the gorilla was discovered, it was rumored for 100 years (bigfoot has only been rumored for 50). About 5 individual gorillas were killed, but not one was kept as a trophy. Some were in remote parts of the forest, some were too big, and some rotted. After being rumored, Gorillas turned out to be real. But this does not logically strengthen the case that bigfoot is real, any more than it strengthens the case for anything without evidence being real. It just shows that some myths are based on reality - nobody here disputes that - it does nothing to filter out which one's are real or not. Tomhet: You're right, there have been hoaxes and that has deterred many people, yet there are some instances where hoaxes are not only implausible but physically impossible. Which ones, specifically. That is a factual claim that is worth looking into.Tyrannax: You're also right. This isn't a bear we're talking about. This is something very similar to us that demonstrates it can think at an almost human level. Maybe they're not being seen because they don't want to be seen. This is post hoc rationalization, that is, you are trying to explain or justify the lack of evidence. This is a typical pass-time for conspiracy peeps and true believers of all sorts. How about just accepting the more likely hypothesis - there isn't any evidence because they don't exist?Sbell (1st post) : Africa and Asia have been inhabited by Westerners far longer than North America. Also, despite there not being North American monkeys, there were Asian giant apes until recently (Gigantopithecus, anyone?) It would have been easy for them to cross the Bering Land Bridge in the same way us humans did. For the other posts, you know how I feel on the Patterson Film. See the other thread. The face is not furred, it is black skin. Only one man claimed to have been in the suit, and he could produce no evidence (no suit, no pictures, nothing). This is what confuses me - you say he could produce no evidence. And you rightly conclude that it is therefore uncovincing. But at present there is no bona fide evidence for bigfoot (if there was, we would not be having this discussion). Why do you value evidence in the case of the self-confessed hoaxer, but go all lax (post-hoc rationalization) when it comes to the other side? The article that was published on him was filled with typos and factual errors, so I find it hard to take seriously. The posture is definitely not human. You say 'definitely not' but Sbell and I say definitely IS human. How do you explain this inconsistency in our opinions? There is a knee herniation, which is a medical condition a suit would not produce. What is a herniated knee and can someone walk with it? How can you tell and who did the study? Even if this was true, it would STILL be more likely that there is a man with herniated knees in the suit. Seriously.
I hope that helps answer all of your questions! Theri [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Nov 17, 2008 17:08:34 GMT
Why must you people be so negative...don't you want it to be true?
Can't you at least try to believe its real?
For lovers of monsters,some members on this thread fiercely shun cryptozoology. That's why its so fun, because it is the study of the unknown. We don't know for sure if these animals don't exist. There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence. So, try to give it a chance instead of always looking for evidence against it...? I mean really, why be negative?
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 17, 2008 17:19:54 GMT
Why must you people be so negative...don't you want it to be true? Can't you at least try to believe its real? For lovers of monsters,some members on this thread fiercely shun cryptozoology. That's why its so fun, because it is the study of the unknown. We don't know for sure if these animals don't exist. There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence. So, try to give it a chance instead of always looking for evidence against it...? I mean really, why be negative? Not negative, realistic. Whether we want it to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not I'm not looking for evidence against it, I'd love for bigfoots to exist! - I'm just saying I'm not convinced it is true untill there is evidence for it. Which is only logical. "There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence."
There is one! they don't exist ;D Don't you think this is a perfectly good reason for these animal's absence?
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Nov 17, 2008 17:25:39 GMT
Why must you people be so negative...don't you want it to be true? Can't you at least try to believe its real? For lovers of monsters,some members on this thread fiercely shun cryptozoology. That's why its so fun, because it is the study of the unknown. We don't know for sure if these animals don't exist. There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence. So, try to give it a chance instead of always looking for evidence against it...? I mean really, why be negative? Not negative, realistic. Whether we want it to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not I'm not looking for evidence against it, I'd love for bigfoots to exist! - I'm just saying I'm not convinced it is true untill there is evidence for it. Which is only logical. "There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence."
There is one! they don't exist ;D Don't you think this is a perfectly good reason for these animal's absence? Yes, I do. ;D And I understand the scale is outweighed as far as evidence against it goes. But I love cryptozoology, and I like reading about unknown animals. So, I will keep believing until the last tree and gallon of water has been searched.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Nov 17, 2008 17:28:22 GMT
Not negative, realistic. Whether we want it to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not I'm not looking for evidence against it, I'd love for bigfoots to exist! - I'm just saying I'm not convinced it is true untill there is evidence for it. Which is only logical. "There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence."
There is one! they don't exist ;D Don't you think this is a perfectly good reason for these animal's absence? Yes, I do. ;D And I understand the scale is outweighed as far as evidence against it goes. But I love cryptozoology, and I like reading about unknown animals. So, I will keep believing until the last tree and gallon of water has been searched. And I'm happy for you to have that faith.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 18:15:14 GMT
Not negative, realistic. Whether we want it to be true or not has no bearing on whether it is true or not I'm not looking for evidence against it, I'd love for bigfoots to exist! - I'm just saying I'm not convinced it is true untill there is evidence for it. Which is only logical. "There may be a perfectly good reason that we haven't thought about for these animal's absence."
There is one! they don't exist ;D Don't you think this is a perfectly good reason for these animal's absence? Yes, I do. ;D And I understand the scale is outweighed as far as evidence against it goes. But I love cryptozoology, and I like reading about unknown animals. So, I will keep believing until the last tree and gallon of water has been searched. Sorry, but belief and faith can carry us only so far--eventually, the facts have to be given their due.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Nov 17, 2008 19:35:29 GMT
Yes, I do. ;D And I understand the scale is outweighed as far as evidence against it goes. But I love cryptozoology, and I like reading about unknown animals. So, I will keep believing until the last tree and gallon of water has been searched. And I'm happy for you to have that faith. Thank You. And I'm glad we have someone on the forums who factual. We need people like that...but we also need people who believe in the unknown and unexplained! Right? ;D BTW, Welcome Back Theri!
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 20:01:35 GMT
And I'm happy for you to have that faith. Thank You. And I'm glad we have someone on the forums who factual. We need people like that...but we also need people who believe in the unknown and unexplained! Right? ;D I believe that many things are unknown and unexplained--for now. We just haven't asked the right questions, or sought the answer the right way.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 17, 2008 20:04:09 GMT
I second everything dinotoyforum said...
I did want to add...
'For lovers of monsters,some members on this thread fiercely shun cryptozoology."
That is because it is all bunk "science". Cryptozoology is about as worthwhile an endeavor for understanding the world around you as "creation science" and astrology.
All the really cool stuff that gets "labeled" UNDER craptozoology falls squarely into the legitimate field of zoology - you know, Ivory Bill woodpeckers, Giant Squid and the like.
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannax on Nov 17, 2008 20:15:31 GMT
I second everything dinotoyforum said... I did want to add... 'For lovers of monsters,some members on this thread fiercely shun cryptozoology." That is because it is all bunk "science". Cryptozoology is about as worthwhile an endeavor for understanding the world around you as "creation science" and astrology. All the really cool stuff that gets "labeled" UNDER craptozoology falls squarely into the legitimate field of zoology - you know, Ivory Bill woodpeckers, Giant Squid and the like. Thats a good example. Giant Squid were thought to be myths until they were discovered...maybe one by one all the unknown animals will be discovered too. Cryptzoology has prevailed several times. Why put down all the animals thought to exist? Because without a doubt at least one is alive today.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Nov 17, 2008 20:31:16 GMT
"Cryptzoology has prevailed several times"
Not really. Zoology "prevailed". Cryptozoology is only "prevails" when the mystery creatures they are after happen to be real ones that legitimate zoologists are looking for. There is no such real science as cryptozoology. Its followers generally only pay attention to it if there is some magical mystical mystery involved.
Zoology is legit, and absolutely fascinating. There are plenty of "mysterious" organisms to be found that may or do exist, like the giant squid. Marine biology is the right field to look into if you want to learn about and study amazing creatures of the deep, not the waste bucket of cryptozoology.
I guess I am glad I don't have to walk all the way out to the far right field of cryptozoology and into the realm on fanatics who usually know very little about legitimate zoology, and how science works, to be excited by the study of the organisms that share the world around me.
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Nov 17, 2008 20:58:19 GMT
"Cryptzoology has prevailed several times" Not really. Zoology "prevailed". Cryptozoology is only "prevails" when the mystery creatures they are after happen to be real ones that legitimate zoologists are looking for. There is no such real science as cryptozoology. Its followers generally only pay attention to it if there is some magical mystical mystery involved. Zoology is legit, and absolutely fascinating. There are plenty of "mysterious" organisms to be found that may or do exist, like the giant squid. Marine biology is the right field to look into if you want to learn about and study amazing creatures of the deep, not the waste bucket of cryptozoology. I guess I am glad I don't have to walk all the way out to the far right field of cryptozoology and into the realm on fanatics who usually know very little about legitimate zoology, and how science works, to be excited by the study of the organisms that share the world around me. Further to that--it wasn't cryptozoologists that found the Coelacanth, the Okapi, the megamouth shark, or the Giant Squid--in fact, as a 'science' it has been no more successful than parapsychology, because it exists as a field for the study of stuff that has no basis in reality--as soon as those become real, they fall into the realm of properly trained zoologists/biologists/botanists. These major discoveries--like the Colossal squid--were not made by people specifically looking for them; they were discovered (often accidentally), and then described. It's impossible to describe something that can't actually be observed. And all of the speculation by a cryptozoologist is completely worthless if a cryptid ever does show up for real, because there is no separating fact from fiction in their accounts.
|
|