|
Post by "Gentleman" AJ Powell on Jan 7, 2014 19:31:43 GMT -5
They did it. They found Manbearpig.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2014 19:33:39 GMT -5
People think they see things and attribute it to things they believe in or have heard of all the time, even when there's nothing there. Eyewitness evidence is extremely unreliable, we have studies to prove it. Native American religion included many mythical creatures, and it's not unreasonable that they would see them. When they interacted with settlers, they would have certainly spread these legends. People see the Virgin Mary in paint splotches and toast, it doesn't really mean that she's really there. Not to mention that there's always the possibility that people lie to get more attention, an action which began shortly after the invention of language. Probably because that evidence isn't that compelling in the first place, and scientists who do examine this cryptid evidence always show that it's not proof of something else (which is promptly ignored by people who believe it). It really goes both ways, people who want to believe want to look at things presented as gospel and shy away from fairly simple explanations that say otherwise. Maybe people with a vested financial interest in the bigfoot mythos are the types of people who would fake evidence to improve their clout and/or profit margins within that community, just like this guy who tried to pass off a rubber suit as a bigfoot corpse. Maybe the known conman who self-published a bigfoot book a year earlier is the type of person who would rent a suit from someone who admits renting him that suit and film a fake video to drum up interest in himself. It's not that everything is dismissed without reason, it's that there has been so much hoax and bullshittery that the impetus on providing evidence that it is real comes down to the people making the claims, not on everyone else to give them the benefit of the doubt. You picked two examples and presented them as compelling, when they're not really compelling pieces of evidence. If the cryptid community wants people to take their word that they didn't fake something, then they need to overcome the reputation for being evidence fabricators and actually have a scientific mindset. There are species out there that we haven't seen, there are extinct species that we'll never know existed, and, at some point, one of them most certainly was a bipedal ape man (although the hair chest isn't terribly likely considering what we know about evolutionary history). But there's really not any compelling evidence that these creatures still exist and are roaming the country, and a lot of that has to do with the bigfoot hunter community itself. Now, the ontario blood samples are interesting, and if that stands up to independent research then maybe I will change my tune. But right now it's still one person's word in the midst of dozens of hoaxes. It doesn't have to be a big expedition. These supposed things are wild animals, they get caught every day by humans in the wilderness. At some point, you're not acting like it's a wild animal, you're acting like it's got superhuman intelligence. I'd have a lot more to say but when quotes get broken up it gives me a headache so I'll keep it short here. It goes past there being an impetus to proving things. There's so much that just gets readily dismissed by scientists as BS without them even giving it empirical examination. Like, that's their job and a lot of them don't even do it. The Ontario samples are probably the best example of this. They've been scientifically examined, it was determined that there's absolutely nothing alive that it matches, but it's also a living creature. But nobody ever talks about it. When your examples of compelling evidence to this point include a plaster cast that someone totally swears is of a sasquatch footprint or a video that clearly could have been faked, there's not a lot to scientifically investigate, so scientific explanations have been as brief as the evidence warrants it to be. As far as no one talking about these samples, you're getting a one-sided view that she's presenting for a TV show (and the money involved), from a woman who once apparently bought her own journal so she could get it published. The fact is, some of these are currently being examined independently. Some of these samples are just old bear species, not the sasquatch that they're claiming, just adding more non-scientific fluff to that entire community. Taking her word as gospel isn't really any better than what you're saying scientists do.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 7, 2014 19:58:09 GMT -5
Exactly, if she had that sort of evidence for a year or more, evidence that would make her legendary in zoological circles and guarantee any grant funding she could ever ask for among a myriad of other perks, where is the peer review of the evidence? If the samples can stand up to scrutiny, what's the hold up?
Plus unidentified doesn't = mythic hominid at all; there are a wide variety of other potential answers that are far simpler--contaminated samples, maybe it's just unknown because she didn't have a particular animal sample on hand to compare, misidentification, or perhaps she's just lying.
111 pieces of evidence sounds impressive, except they're not really credible pieces when it's based on one person's assertion. That's just attempted proof by verbosity, wherein a sheer number of pieces of 'evidence', no matter the quality of that evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2014 20:06:33 GMT -5
I'd have a lot more to say but when quotes get broken up it gives me a headache so I'll keep it short here. It goes past there being an impetus to proving things. There's so much that just gets readily dismissed by scientists as BS without them even giving it empirical examination. Like, that's their job and a lot of them don't even do it. The Ontario samples are probably the best example of this. They've been scientifically examined, it was determined that there's absolutely nothing alive that it matches, but it's also a living creature. But nobody ever talks about it. When your examples of compelling evidence to this point include a plaster cast that someone totally swears is of a sasquatch footprint or a video that clearly could have been faked, there's not a lot to scientifically investigate, so scientific explanations have been as brief as the evidence warrants it to be. As far as no one talking about these samples, you're getting a one-sided view that she's presenting for a TV show (and the money involved), from a woman who once apparently bought her own journal so she could get it published. The fact is, some of these are currently being examined independently. Some of these samples are just old bear species, not the sasquatch that they're claiming, just adding more non-scientific fluff to that entire community. Taking her word as gospel isn't really any better than what you're saying scientists do. The Skookum cast probably isn't the best example since it was probably an elk, but the Patterson film's alleged fakery is the product of pure hearsay. There's absolutely no evidence. But what gets written off as a cheap suit has extremely complicated muscle movement underneath the fur. There was no way to reproduce that with so much detail in the 1960's. The "It was a bear" DNA test is, as pointed out in the article, based on a very tiny sample in which case, as it explains, makes it very easy to confuse with something else altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 7, 2014 23:03:23 GMT -5
When your examples of compelling evidence to this point include a plaster cast that someone totally swears is of a sasquatch footprint or a video that clearly could have been faked, there's not a lot to scientifically investigate, so scientific explanations have been as brief as the evidence warrants it to be. As far as no one talking about these samples, you're getting a one-sided view that she's presenting for a TV show (and the money involved), from a woman who once apparently bought her own journal so she could get it published. The fact is, some of these are currently being examined independently. Some of these samples are just old bear species, not the sasquatch that they're claiming, just adding more non-scientific fluff to that entire community. Taking her word as gospel isn't really any better than what you're saying scientists do. The Skookum cast probably isn't the best example since it was probably an elk, but the Patterson film's alleged fakery is the product of pure hearsay. There's absolutely no evidence. But what gets written off as a cheap suit has extremely complicated muscle movement underneath the fur. There was no way to reproduce that with so much detail in the 1960's. The "It was a bear" DNA test is, as pointed out in the article, based on a very tiny sample in which case, as it explains, makes it very easy to confuse with something else altogether. It's hearsay, sure, but it's hearsay based on corroborated evidence from people who say they were involved. Meanwhile, the only proof that it's true is the fact that Patterson and Gimlin say it is. At worst, it should be one group's word against anothers. The suit itself was doable, according to one Hollywood SE artist who said you could make that suit for a few hundred bucks at the time the video was taken. Other inconsistencies in their story, such as photo captions claiming they were somewhere other than they were, and the fact that Patterson was looking to profit off of the mythos (in fact, they were out there to film a faux documentary about Bigfoot) all gives us cause to doubt their story, which is the only thing that could be taken as proof of it's authenticity. As far as the hair and blood, you are right, the DNA that has been debunked is a small portion up to this point, but none of this portion has been shown as a previously unknown primate species to this point, which doesn't inspire confidence for the bulk of the remaining samples. Maybe it shows that con-artists may have found some marks in bigfoot believers to sell them items that are something other than what they claim, maybe it shows that some of these people are looking for a payday themselves. It also shows that there are real scientists who know what they're doing are at least willing to take those claims and try to verify them, not just suppress everything as the woman in the story was claiming. And that does beg the question of whether her paper wasn't published because of some agenda, or whether it wasn't published because it was a bad paper with bad research. If it's not independently researched, then why, when we have this guy right here who was putting out a call for everything, would you not share your research that would advance your cause of wanting to protect these creatures with him. Surely samples from another person who had done such extensive DNA analysis would take more precedent. The possibility of profit can make science go awry, and a lot of people of looking to profit off of this mythos. I'm just playing the numbers here, the cryptid crowd has consistently and repeatedly struck out, it's hard to believe that any of the current crop would change it.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jan 8, 2014 9:25:31 GMT -5
Before departing, the woman noted her ex-husband went missing some time back, telling a neighbor he was going out for some camping but never returned home.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 8, 2014 10:03:06 GMT -5
The Csicop article on Melba Ketchum (I'll try and link when in front of cpu), pretty annihilates her credibility, and the credibility of those blood samples. She's got none. The article has all its sources cited and goes piece by piece through her announcement on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 11:17:56 GMT -5
Aww, man! They killed Bob during the filming of Fox's upcoming special, "In Search of Bigfoot".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 12:12:44 GMT -5
I found a better picture of the Bigfoot from the article in the OP...
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 8, 2014 12:22:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 19:00:52 GMT -5
Interesting article, and I'm glad you posted this. It definitely crushes anything that she said. I only went through the key points, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see anything about the samples, which have yet to be tested by a reputable geneticist. Which if you have any reason to believe that any of these might be legit, pretty much sucks. Because personally, I'd like to see if any of these can be "verified" or just straight-up cut down.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Jan 8, 2014 21:16:17 GMT -5
Some of you seem to care far too greatly if some of the rest of us like to think a new species may possibly exist.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 8, 2014 21:48:33 GMT -5
Some of you seem to care far too greatly if some of the rest of us like to think a new species may possibly exist. I personally don't care if anyone believes it or not, but biology and evolutionary history are interesting subjects, and if cryptozoology is anything, it's interesting. So it makes a good subject to look at and discuss, which happens to be the point of a message board.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Jan 9, 2014 10:50:33 GMT -5
I've researched a lot when it comes to Bigfoot, attempted some expeditions, and talk at lengths with people who are in that particular field via locally or educational wise. With that said, I actually do believe in Bigfoot and find that some people are too quick to dimiss it's existence as overactive imaginations, misidentifications of known species, or hoaxes. While it's true that obvious hoaxes, lies, and fake suits in general don't help lead credibility to the case, I think we have to understand one thing, and that is people are or have seen something.
This isn't the case of the Jersey Devil, Lochness Monster, or Mothman where you've had a few to a hundred sightings. Bigfoot sightings have been into the thousand upon thousands, in my opinion, there's no way that EVERYONE is simply making it up.
As for this individuals claim of killing Bigfoot and having the body? There's no way it'd be in his possession if he did.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Jan 9, 2014 11:00:10 GMT -5
Like I said, I believe Bigfoot exists. I also believe the Patterson/Gimlin footage is a real creature that is being displayed. One of the main aspects to me that strengthens the credibility is the muscle movement, the length of the limbs, and the gait of the subject as well. All of which aren't normal for a man in a suit. The fact that it hasn't been disproven is proof that it's a legitimate species in that footage.
Another thing that I recently thought about. Just what if Bigfoot is a new species of man? In another words what if it's a human that has lived out in the wilderness for so long, it's just adapted to the environment, and when you think about it, that more or less could explain why no one has found a body, bones, etc. Lots of humans live off the grid and are never seen again, maybe that's something to consider there as well.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jan 9, 2014 11:19:28 GMT -5
Like I said, I believe Bigfoot exists. I also believe the Patterson/Gimlin footage is a real creature that is being displayed. One of the main aspects to me that strengthens the credibility is the muscle movement, the length of the limbs, and the gait of the subject as well. All of which aren't normal for a man in a suit. The fact that it hasn't been disproven is proof that it's a legitimate species in that footage. Another thing that I recently thought about. Just what if Bigfoot is a new species of man? In another words what if it's a human that has lived out in the wilderness for so long, it's just adapted to the environment, and when you think about it, that more or less could explain why no one has found a body, bones, etc. Lots of humans live off the grid and are never seen again, maybe that's something to consider there as well. Your first point is simply poor reasoning. Several people have come out and said they were involved with it as a hoax, and at least one expert have said making a suit of that nature in that time was possible and not difficult. Books have been written examining and debunking it, so obviously the only thing that could be enough for those who believe it's real to accept that the video isn't would be for Gimlin to come out and say it was a hoax, and he's not going to. Refusing to consider or accept any of these explanations and then saying that that refusal is tantamount to proving that it's true is scientifically unsound. Science doesn't work by accepting one piece of dodgy evidence and using that to create fact, it requires years of careful observation and experimentation, where hypotheses are tested with alternate explanations, and then if it stands up to intense scrutiny, it can become a valid theory. For the second, it's a common misconception about evolution, so I can see how some might think that, but that's much more unlikely than the theory that an earlier ancestor of humanity evolved to become sasquatch and is still extant. In evolution, an individual's body doesn't change to adapt to it's environment, random mutation occurs and if that mutation is beneficial (or neutral), they will have more opportunity to pass on that mutation to children. A new species of human evolving to be sasquatch is a process that'd take thousands, if not millions,of years, given how long human lifespans and generation rates are, and that'd predate even the earliest sightings of bigfoot. Then you have to consider that these creatures have traits that are not even common in apes, the closest known relative, so we're talking significantly divergent evolutionary paths. A mountain man disappearing in the 1600s is simply not going to become sasquatch, unless he raises a family that builds elaborate suits to walk around the woods in to scare outsiders away. It's also not really possible that it coudl be an interbreeding between humans and some other different species, as this produces sterile offspring in nature. If we're considering these sightings credible, given it's range across the country and the fact that you need a certain minimum population size to sustain a species, then we're looking at a population at least in the tens of thousands, especially considering how long these supposed sightings have occurred. That's a lot of members of a species to not leave any credible physical evidence, especially considering that this is much larger than many species that we do have physical evidence of. It'd be one thing to argue that this was a species that existed at one point, there probably has been a species resembling it to a degree and our fossil record will never be complete simple because it requires a very distinct set of circumstances to create a fossil. But a large extant species in a heavily explored and cataloged country would be much harder not to find, certainly by individuals not interested in profiting off the mythos.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 11:21:21 GMT -5
Joe Rogan should question this guy if ge ever does season 2.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Jan 9, 2014 11:40:46 GMT -5
Like I said, I believe Bigfoot exists. I also believe the Patterson/Gimlin footage is a real creature that is being displayed. One of the main aspects to me that strengthens the credibility is the muscle movement, the length of the limbs, and the gait of the subject as well. All of which aren't normal for a man in a suit. The fact that it hasn't been disproven is proof that it's a legitimate species in that footage. Another thing that I recently thought about. Just what if Bigfoot is a new species of man? In another words what if it's a human that has lived out in the wilderness for so long, it's just adapted to the environment, and when you think about it, that more or less could explain why no one has found a body, bones, etc. Lots of humans live off the grid and are never seen again, maybe that's something to consider there as well. Your first point is simply poor reasoning. Several people have come out and said they were involved with it as a hoax, and at least one expert have said making a suit of that nature in that time was possible and not difficult. Books have been written examining and debunking it, the only thing that could be enough for those who believe it exists would be for Gimlin to come out and say it was a hoax, and he's not going to. Refusing to consider or accept any of these explanations and then saying that that refusal is tantamount to proving that it's true is scientifically unsound. Science doesn't work by accepting one piece of dodgy evidence and using that to create fact, it requires years of careful observation and experimentation, where hypotheses are tested with alternate explanations, and then if it stands up to intense scrutiny, it can become a valid theory. For the second, it's a common misconception about evolution, so I can see how some might think that, but that's much more unlikely than the theory that an earlier ancestor of humanity evolved to become sasquatch and is still extant. In evolution, an individual's body doesn't change to adapt to it's environment, random mutation occurs and if that mutation is beneficial (or neutral), they will have more opportunity to pass on that mutation to children. A new species of human evolving to be sasquatch is a process that'd take thousands, if not millions,of years, given how long human lifespans and generation rates are, and that'd predate even the earliest sightings of bigfoot. Then you have to consider that these creatures have traits that are not even common in apes, the closest known relative, so we're talking significantly divergent evolutionary paths. A mountain man disappearing in the 1600s is simply not going to become sasquatch, unless he raises a family that builds elaborate suits to walk around the woods in to scare outsiders away. If we're considering these sightings credible, given it's range across the country and the fact that you need a certain minimum population size to sustain a species, then we're looking at a population at least in the tens of thousands, especially considering how long these supposed sightings have occurred. That's a lot of members of a species to not leave any credible physical evidence, especially considering that this is much larger than many species that we do have physical evidence of. It'd be one thing to argue that this was a species that existed at one point, there probably has been a species resembling it to a degree and our fossil record will never be complete simple because it requires a very distinct set of circumstances to create a fossil. But a large extant species in a heavily explored and cataloged country would be much harder not to find, certainly by individuals not interested in profiting off the mythos. Several of those books, videos, or interviews haven't debunked it. You can debunk anything if you are skeptic. However, the same can be said with scientists who are believers and have studied it, perhaps they're seeing what they want to see as well. But from what I've read, studied, and seen via documentaries and lectures is that the lengths of the arms, the gait of the walk, and the muscle movement are wrong for a human in a suit. Also why go through the trouble in adding breasts to the suit? If Patterson/Gimlin really wanted to create a hoax, a simple male Bigfoot monkey suit would've sufficed, so why add breasts to the suit is my question? As for the rest of your posts? Granted it would be ideal to see that in order for a species to sustain its existence, there would have to be breeding obviously. But I refuse to believe that EVERYONE is making it up. Look how rare it is to find bear remains. We know bears exist and yet we never find any of their remains, as when they die, they go to very remote area and pass away and that's when nature takes its course. With that said, I don't believe it's a hoax, there is something out there and while it's easy for skeptics to sit back and say its a hoax, they will never find themselves out there in the element/woods looking for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 12:58:11 GMT -5
Your first point is simply poor reasoning. Several people have come out and said they were involved with it as a hoax, and at least one expert have said making a suit of that nature in that time was possible and not difficult. Books have been written examining and debunking it, so obviously the only thing that could be enough for those who believe it's real to accept that the video isn't would be for Gimlin to come out and say it was a hoax, and he's not going to. If we're going by that logic...I admit it. I rigged Super Bowl XL. It was a farce. A prank. A joke. A betting scam! How can you be sure? Because I said I was involved. So strike the game from the record books, y'all. Obviously that's not the exact same thing. But just because some dude says he was the guy in the monkey suit, that doesn't mean he actually was the guy in the monkey suit, or that any guy was in the monkey suit, or that it was a monkey suit at all. Similarly, an expert said making a suit of that nature in that time was possible and not difficult. Can he actually do it? Or is he just blowing smoke up everyone's ass? Or is he like Bob Hieronimus (AKA: A guy who said he was in the monkey suit) who claims to be able to recreate the film and fails miserably? There's way too much "I say it's fake, therefore it's fake!" debunking. That's not a debunking. That's just a statement of opinion.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,281
|
Post by Push R Truth on Jan 9, 2014 13:18:06 GMT -5
I want to believe.
I really do.
|
|