Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:49 pm

NobleSavage wrote:I would sincerely appreciate a return to some generosity here on the the part of both of you. You are both valuable contributors to this forum, and you both have made your stance crystal clear. Thank You both in advance.... Smile

As far as I can tell CMcMillan is on the same page as me with regard to terminology. I have explained where there has been a misunderstanding and why it was important to the topic at hand for her to clarify if she meant Hominid or Hominin. I've also indicated how we can bring this back on topic.

The ball is in her court.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Thanks Woodwose, Tzeith, and Cm

Post  ***** on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:01 pm

I knew we could agree to disagree here. Thanks Again..


*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:05 pm

Look it seems to me that it is all a moot point Since MANY Scientists also use both terms the same way as TZ did.
Wood Is being a purist which oK good for him. But the fact remains that not all scientists agree or even use the Tribe name.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1050350684.Ev.r.html


Now, to apply this problem to humans. Humans are Kingdom: Animal; Phylum:
Chordate; Class: Mammal; Order: Primate – up to this point you don’t get
much disagreement among scientists. But what about Family? Well, in old
days (up until the 1980’s) humans were thought to differ from the other
apes at the family level. That made humans Hominoids and apes Anthropoids.
That made the word “hominid” a family level distinction that includes all
the human species that ever evolved (including the extinct ones) that
excludes the apes. Most specialists today use the work “hominid” to mean
just that, although recent research shows that it is incorrect usage.
(For
you purists out there, I am for the moment ignoring the difference between
Family and Super Family. The difference between those levels comes down to
the same basic problem anyway.)

Recent work shows that apes are not a monophyletic group (all descended
from one ancestor), so that chimps and gorillas share a more recent
ancestor with humans than they do with the orangutan. That means that, on
the strict taxonomic level, chimps and gorillas are hominids. There are
some specialists that use the term in this way – although it gets very
confusing when they do. If chimps and gorillas are hominids, what then do
we call the group that leads to humans but not to chimps and gorillas? For
that, we come up with a new taxonomic level called Tribe, that lies
between Family and Genus. The Tribe hominini describes all the human
species that ever evolved (including the extinct ones) that excludes the
chimps and gorillas.

when scientists use the word hominin today, they mean pretty much the
same thing as when they used the word hominid twenty years ago. When these
scientists use the word hominid, they mean pretty much the same thing as
when they used the word hominoid twenty years ago.
Of course, there are
still plenty of scientists around today that use the words exactly they
way they used them twenty years ago. And, all of the papers that were
published just a few years ago probably use the older terminology although
their interpretations are still very current and valid.


If you’re more confused now than you were before, you are just about where
you should be. We scientists really need to clean up shop in this area.
Paleoanthropologists get a lot of criticism over this issue, especially
from scientists who study the evolution of other species.
However, those
scientists are no better off in their taxonomic problems. They simply
benefit from the fact that only a handful of people study individual non-
human species, which makes it easier to come to an agreement. But when you
come to a hot topic area, dinosaurs for example, the taxonomic situation
is just as confused and confusing.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Is it reasonable to state there is a lack of evidence?

Post  ***** on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:28 pm

Napier wrote that the mainstream scientific community's indifference stems primarily from "insufficient evidence ... it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather than beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible".

Anthropologist David Daegling echoed this idea, citing a "remarkably limited amount of Sasquatch data that are amenable to scientific scrutiny." He also suggests mainstream skeptics should take a proactive position "to offer an alternative explanation. We have to explain why we see Bigfoot when there is no such animal".

While he does have some pointed criticism for mainstream science and academia, Krantz concedes that while "the Scientific Establishment generally resists new ideas ... there is a good reason for it ... Quite simply put, new and innovative ideas in science are almost always wrong."

Is bigfoot's existence a new idea proposed to science?

*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Thu Sep 20, 2012 2:48 pm

.. it is hardly unsurprising that scientists prefer to investigate the probable rather than beat their heads against the wall of the faintly possible".

This statement made me chuckle.
So how do they determine if it is Probable or Faintly Possible?
Something is leaving Tracks and prints all over the place.
So they say
It is only "Faintly Possible" that these tracks were created by an unknown creature. So we shouldn't bother.

when they could say
It is Probable that their is an unknown creature in the forests of the world that is creating these tracks. So we should investigate more


avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Footprint Evidence is strong...IMO

Post  ***** on Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:01 pm

Coleman and Clark write that there are some footprint hoaxes, but argue that they are often clumsy in comparison to presumably genuine prints, which "show distinctive forensic features that to investigators indicate they are not fakes" (Coleman and Clark, 42). Similarly, Krantz notes, "Toe positions can and do vary from one imprint to another of the same foot. We have several clear examples of this. It is my impression that sasquatch toes are more mobile than those on civilized human feet," and that hoaxing this detail would require detailed anatomical knowledge, making a hoax unlikely (Krantz, 23).

Researcher Henry Franzoni writes, "A strong piece of evidence which suggests that the footprints are not due to a hoax or hoaxers is from Dr. W. Henner Farenbach. He has studied a database of 550 track cast length measurements and has made some preliminary observations... The gaussian distribution of the 550 footprint lengths gives a curve that is very similar to the curve given by living populations of known animals without much sexual dimorphism in footprint length. The standard error is very low, so additions to the database will not affect the result very much. It is not very likely that coordinated groups of hoaxers conspiring together for 38 years (the time span covered by the database of track measurements) could provide such a 'life-like' distribution in footprint lengths. Groups of hoaxers who did not conspire together would almost certainly result in a non-gaussian distribution for the database of footprint lengths" [3].

Similarly, in Population Clines of the North American Sasquatch as Evidenced by Track Length and Average Status, anthropologist George Gill writes, "The preliminary results of our study support the hypothesis that Sasquatch actually exists ... not only seem to exist, but conform to ecogeographical rules" (Halpin and Ames, 272).

A series of alleged Bigfoot tracks found near Bossburg, Washington, in 1969 appeared to show that the creature's right foot was crippled. The deformed footprints are consistent with genuine disfigurement, and some argue that a hoax is unlikely. John Napier wrote of this case, "It is very difficult to conceive of a hoaxer so subtle, so knowledgeable; and so sick; who would deliberately fake a footprint of this nature. I suppose it is possible, but it is so unlikely that I am prepared to discount it" [4]. Krantz declared that "analysis of the apparent anatomy of these tracks proved to be the first convincing evidence... that the animals were real" (Krantz, 54).

Another pair of alleged handprints was recovered in the late 1980s by Paul Freeman and given to Krantz for analysis; for similar reasons, Krantz judged them genuine (Krantz, 47-51).

Several impressions believed by Bigfoot researches to have been hand and footprints from the creature allegedly contain dermal ridges (fingerprints) have been discovered, which are present only on humans and other primates. Krantz reports that he offered casts of these prints to "more than forty" law enforcement fingerprint specialists across Canada and the United States. The reactions that he received ranged from "'very interesting' and 'they sure look real' to 'there is no doubt these are real.' The only exception was the Federal Bureau of Investigation expert who had said something to this effect, 'The implications of this are just too much; I can't believe it's real'" (Krantz, 71).

Krantz offered these same casts to physical anthropologists and primatologists. Conclusions were similarly varied, with several ruling them hoaxes. Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, unlike most respondents, said there was "no good reason to reject them" (ibid). Opinion remains divided, however, with suggestions that the man who allegedly discovered the prints had confessed to other hoaxes [5].

One of the casts with visible fingerprints showed sweat pores. Krantz reports that "police expert Benny Kling ... commented that anyone who could engrave ridge detail of such quantity and quality should be making counterfeit money" (Krantz, 77). This same print showed displayisa, a common minor irregularity. Krantz writes, "The late Robert Olson was particularly impressed with this irregularity, as was Ed Palma of the San Diego Police Department" (ibid).

*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:52 pm

CMcMillan,

Obviously the taximony I have been describing is still very new (and may even be a fad), so it comes as no surprise that there is some confusion and that numerous scientists continue to use the old taximony. For the old guard it's very hard to break old habits and for those non-specialists it's not of any real interest.

So, now that we both know that you were talking about comparing Patty's physiology to that of the numerous Hominid species, what bearing do think that has on the authenticity of the PGF?

NobleSavage,

Thanks for refreshing my memory on Krantz's work - it reminds me why I still have an interest in BF.

One distinction I would like to make is that between scientists who think that BF is plausible, those who are willing to admit as much and those who are willing to engage in research.

I suspect that combined the first two groups are quite large, whilst the second and third are not as large as they should be because of stigma and the resulting lack of interest in funding research.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Thoughtful Post

Post  ***** on Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:36 pm

Krantz has my respect, as do many others who have risked much, and gained little in pursuit of an unbiased and thorough examination of this species.

*****

Posts : 279
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Thu Sep 20, 2012 7:04 pm

Yes, Krantz has been a credit to the field. Unfortunately for every Krantz there are dozens of M. K. Davis clowns and what self respecting academic would want to be associated with such 'experts'?

I've got nothing against amateur investigations - Darwin was after all an amateur - but these guys have no regard for the scientific method or rational thinking.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Tzieth on Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:32 pm

Woodwose wrote:Tzieth,

Do yourself a favour and look up the taxonomy for gorillas and let me know when you have figured out what family they belong to.

What does that have to do with anything? You are trying to correct terminology that you deem as incorrect that to main-stream is still considered correct.

Now what I found is that this is not only being debated here but Anthropologists are in a fight to make only "Homo-Genus" Hominids and create a separate category for the other bipedal hominids that are closer to ape.

I think your taxonomy is for now, based off of "what is". But this would open a can of worms on "what was". If modern biologists are trying to add in apes and anthropologists are trying to weed out even the ones that were bipedal (Australopithecines), then let them have at it.

Wow I was looking for the page that shows the whole argument that I had up this morning. while looking I stumbled on to this http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2009/medill-reports/evolution/dna-analysis-intensifies-evolution-debate. That isn't the old Creation vs Evolution debate. DNA just opened up another can of worms. This is the single source evolution vs multi-source. DNA is saying that we may have come from Asia and then moved in to Africa.. But I digress

Seems Anthropology (Which don't get me wrong, that field is a joke.) definitely does not view Gorilla or Pan as Hominids. I think Bigfoot is a generic term for all of them. Thus I will still use "Hominid" as if indeed Bigfoot is one or all of them, then I suspect that title will change a few more times.
avatar
Tzieth

Posts : 478
Join date : 2012-08-27
Age : 43
Location : Vancouver, Washington

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:59 am

Tzieth wrote:What does that have to do with anything? You are trying to correct terminology that you deem as incorrect that to main-stream is still considered correct.

Not at all - see CMcMillan's account of the current attitude to taximony.

The point is that I could pay a dozen experts to visit you and explain the terminology and you probably wouldn't believe them, so you won't believe anything I say unless you discover the information for yourself.

So, what family do gorillas belong to? It's a simple question.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Blondie1 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:23 am

[Noble-quote]I would sincerely appreciate a return to some generosity here on the the part of both of you. You are both valuable contributors to this forum, and you both have made your stance crystal clear. Thank You both in advance....[quote]

I wanted to quote Noble's articulate and patient suggestion again and then bring my own sentiments here....

Knock it off or I'm going to start editing baiting comments out of posts and or deleting them period! It's important to respect other's theories, beliefs, conclusions period! Goading and baiting get us nowhere! Repeating the same things or posts in two different threads is an insult to my intelligence.
I figure you've got two options, take it outside (via pm's) or take it to the non-moderated Bigfoot section.
avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:31 am

To be honest, I don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Are you saying that we are not aloud to disagree, or we will be moderated?

Repetition is necessary if someone is unable to understand an argument the first time around and I haven't seen any goading on either side of the argument.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Blondie1 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:55 am

Oh no problem with disagreeing...you are allowed to disagree that's no problem Repetition can be good but not baiting and goading. That's called trolling according to the trolling definitions SasquaiNation used initially.


Last edited by Blondie1 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:31 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Blondie1 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:03 am

There is also a big difference in repetition with positive intent vs redundancy to the point of nausea. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. Perhaps I need to realize that just because I think he needs water he obviously thinks he doesn't and accept that I can't force him to drink it.
avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:10 am

can we all agree on this

when scientists use the word hominin today, they mean pretty much the
same thing as when they used the word hominid twenty years ago. When these
scientists use the word hominid, they mean pretty much the same thing as
when they used the word hominoid twenty years ago. Of course, there are
still plenty of scientists around today that use the words exactly they
way they used them twenty years ago. And, all of the papers that were
published just a few years ago probably use the older terminology although
their interpretations are still very current and valid.

if we can then Woods view is correct so is TZ's so we should just accept it that the word hominid still is not clearly defined in the realm of science.
And both are correct uses.
Seriously debating over a word scientists are still debating over is silly.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Blondie1 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:13 am

Thanks Cm. I guess we'll see ...
avatar
Blondie1

Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:30 am

Blondie1 wrote:Oh no problem with disagreeing...you are allowed to disagree that's no problem. Repetition can be good but not baiting and goading. That's called trolling according to the trolling definitions SasquaiNation used initially.


So where is the baiting and goading (not to be confused with veracity)?
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:34 am

CMcMillan wrote:if we can then Woods view is correct so is TZ's so we should just accept it that the word hominid still is not clearly defined in the realm of science.

I think that's a gross misrepresentation. I suggest that you re-read the references you provided yesterday.

If TZ looks up the taxonomy for gorillas he will discover the family they are currently classified under. From that family name he will be able to see the term that is used to refer to members of that family.

As a clue the term in question has the same relationship to the family name as Hominin does to Homininae.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:44 am

For those interested...................http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/08/30/how-the-turtle-got-its-shell/

Ignore this, I posted it in the wrong thread!


Last edited by Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:01 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:52 am

In your post 155

CMcMillan,

Obviously the taximony I have been describing is still very new (and may even be a fad), so it comes as no surprise that there is some confusion and that numerous scientists continue to use the old taximony. For the old guard it's very hard to break old habits and for those non-specialists it's not of any real interest.

So, now that we both know that you were talking about comparing Patty's physiology to that of the numerous Hominid species, what bearing do think that has on the authenticity of the PGF?

You said it may be a FAD! so why are you arguing about it?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Woodwose on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:08 am

All scientific theories are open to refutation and are constantly being questioned (science has never claimed to have all the answers).

At he moment the new taxonomy makes sense and is formed according to the evidence currently available. That might change in the future. For the time being it helps with lines of ommunication if everyone uses the terminology that is currently favoured.

Why are you still harping on about this instead of getting things back on topic?
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:10 am

Because I asked if we could agree that BOTH usages work. Since even in science it is up to debate STILL.
but you came back and said i was over simplifying it.
But you yourself said that many don't accept it yet and agreed that other scientists still use the term the old way.
So your arguing with TZ is stupid over the term
Agree that both ways are still being used.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:17 am

Anyway we should just drop the Hominin and Homind discussion its just going around.
Your a purest on the term others are not.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  CMcMillan on Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:33 am

Ok so Evolution:

We having the discussion of evolution and Mutations:

Why do skeptics jump on people cases when people say bigfoot must be able to see infra-red.
Per evolution and Mutations it is possible since other animals can see this spectrum that Bigfoot evolved to see in the same spectrum over time.
So to say its crazy is saying that evolution is crazy.
It is possible they can since we supposedly come from the same single cell organism so we would all have the trait to adapt to this over time.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why do bigfoot enthusiasts hold on to evidence that science has dismissed?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum