Sunday, November 20, 2016

What Happens When Bigfoot Makes A Mistake?


What happens when we see bigfoot during the daytime? Are they making a mistake?

23 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Preach it, Uno!
      - BigfootStudent

      Delete
    2. Yes indeed - it's all about faith.

      Delete
    3. A thousands year old multi-cultural conspiracy theory of hoaxers = epic faith.

      Thousands of years of misidentification = epic faith.

      Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental quasi-religion.

      Delete
    4. No thousand year old conspiracy is needed. You are on the right track with the misidentification though.

      Delete
    5. Argh of course! For thousands of years, there has been a culture hopping knack of misidentifying Sasquatch. These people, though finding each others customs undesirable, and spanning from a time when they didn't even know what a non-human primate looked like, have in fact by chance alone managed misidentify the exact same anatomical and behavioural traits, and also to fool the best experts with fake biological species traits that span decades and States, in lottery win fashion too! Even instances where multiple eyewitnesses have seen the exact same thing at the exact same time! Even people who are trained in observational skills in high pressure situations like police officers. Tell me... How come forensics sketches such as this can be achieved by pure misidentification alone?

      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qXcRUWD1NVc/S4_nagDRvzI/AAAAAAAABhE/FumSBJu8WpM/s1600-h/Bigfoot-Sketch-III.jpg

      Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    6. ^ Cherry picked anecdoltalisms
      and nothing more folks,,keep moving,,nothing to learn here.

      Its actualy fun to listen to a low IQ retard preach to his superiors.then LASH OUT WHEN QUESTIONED about his stupidity!!

      HAA HAA HAA ,,it never get's
      OLD LOL!!

      AC(fake) collins. :-))

      Delete
  2. ^ pot calling kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One does not require mere faith for repeatable scientific evidence.

      Delete
    2. What REPEATABLE scientific evidence???

      You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

      Delete
    3. If the ridge characteristics in dermatoglyphics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints, are verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence.

      Another example? There are ways of testing biological evidence in the many hair samples found at locations of alleged Sasquatch activity, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' uniform morphology. If repeated samples are all morphologically congruent (ruling out hoaxing), and are definitively indistinguishable from classified human and non-human primates but uniquely uniform... Then again you have repeatable scientific evidence. Science is simply the process of using repeatable methods to acquire and understand verifiable facts and testable hypotheses.

      "A scientific theory is set forth to explain the available data in light of new information. All too often we hear people with an agenda exclaim, "it's only a theory" or "it's an untested theory". There is no such things as an untested theory! What makes a hypothesis into a theory is the fact that it has been tested and is supported by those test results. The "untested theory" is thus an oxymoron and I believe is used to deceive people about scientific issues."
      http://science.geologist-1011.net/

      Please don't pretend you are familiar with any facts. And pseudoscepticism is a fundamental quasi-religion.

      Delete
    4. And these "examples" are accepted by the scientific community as a whole? I think not, because if they were we would not be having this conversation. Please don't pretend YOU have a case when it's quite clear to the scientific world that you don't.

      "Tens of scientists?" HA - name all these scientists who are specialist in this area of dermatoglyphics.

      Delete
    5. Even though you don’t have a means of classifying what that primate is, the objective outcome is you still have the anatomical impression, and biological fibres of an unclassified bipedal primate that has not only been falsifiably tested to scientific standards, but requires the same level of further investigation as the Bili Ape had. However, AND WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT HERE, is the extraordinary nature of what this evidence entails is in fact what's holding back the requirement of subsequent mainstream investigative measures. It means that until extraordinary evidence surfaces (a body), the subject isn't going to draw the attention of a majority of mainstream scientists who would only THEN be in a position to become aware of the many evidences that preceded it. Without this, few will see beyond the hoaxing and pop culture. It's a very detrimental circle that can be simplified as the requirement of extraordinary evidence without the extraordinary effort it would require to source it. The cart before the horse.

      Here's a start with the forensic experts;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      And...
      "Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."

      Delete
    6. Well let's see, that article was written clear back in 1983, Krantz is now dead and who and where are all these "experts" now? Even he stated that of those thirty police fingerprint workers only twelve of those might be considered experts. I would love to know who each and every one of these are by name and their opinion now (if they are even still alive). We should have hundreds more of these tracks by now so why doesn't someone round up all these "experts" along with some current ones and summit a scientific paper to a reputable scientific journal if the evidence is so compelling? Someone like - gee, I dunno, maybe like........ Meldrum perhaps?

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Moving the goalposts;
      Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

      Outside of the experts that offered their opinions in Krantz's paper, if you have 18 fingerprint workers in concurrence with 12 "real experts", then that still does nothing but substantiate the evidence. And you still have (cough, cough) 12 fingerprint experts, six physical anthropologists, four pathologists and two zoologists. You'd "love to know of these people and their opinions today", how does that help you here and now trying to explain the evidence away? You can't manage that, yet you want hundreds more?? Wow... Goalpsost fallacy 101. If you know anything about the nature of dermals and how they are formed, you'd know that these are very rare occurrences, but they do indeed happen. I'll find you a photograph of them found in tracks impressions in due course.

      Also... reagardless of the requirement of extraordinary evidence, track impressions have never been submitted for peer review, they're usually used to track the creature leaving them with the subsequent discovery being submitted afterwards.

      Delete
    9. Forensics is a factual assessment, not an evolving opinion 9:37. Why would their "opinion" change on a scientific study?

      Delete
    10. Always late to the party but Anon you & lktomi might find this podcast interesting.

      http://monstertalk.skeptic.com/bigfoot_first_impressions

      Delete
    11. Thanks for that Curious. I believe I've used the same link with quotes from Chilcutt in the past.

      Delete
    12. Dang, the interesting conversations always happen when I am at my busiest. I'll have to re-listen to that podcast myself as it's been awhile since I last heard it.

      Delete
    13. It's all good curious, you always a welcome contributer at the BFE, In my opinion.

      a.c.collins

      Delete