Hypocrisy in Science

[mythusmage]

Or, How Yowies, Yetis, and Psychokenesis are Equivalent Phenomenon.

Earth actually has one supercontinent, and two island continents. The fact the single supercontinent is coverd in part by water has led us to view it as four separate continents: Africa, Eurasia, North America, and South America. The two island continents are Australia and Antarctica. Keep all this in mind, because it plays a part in the following essay.

On Ape Men as Bete Noirs of Scientists and Cyrptozoologists.

There is said to be an ape-man roaming the forests of Queensland in northern Australia. People have claimed to see it. Some claim to have found tracks. It is called the yowie. The putative presence of the yowie on Australia has a big problem, it’s a line named after a fellow by the name of Russel Wallace (no relation to the politician, comedian, or sasquatch hoaxter). West of that line the fauna is southeast Eurasian, east of it the fauna becomes Australian. How did the yowie get over that line when other large fauna did not? Such as, say, the orangutan?

The lack of hair samples, photographs, or stool samples is telling, but the lack of a way to get to Australia from Eurasia is even more telling. Before you can move to a new location you have to have a way of getting there. When it comes to Australia Homo sapiens did. Homo erectus, as far as we know, didn’t. Nor, I suspect, did any “ape-man” contemporaneous with H. sapiens and erectus.

This pretty much rules out the yowie as a real creature. If it does turn out to exist the next goal would be to learn how the species got to Australia. A problem that would lead to literally tons of scientific papers.

With the yowie out of the way we now proceed to your favorite and mine, the sasquatch. Unlike the yowie there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to the existance of a large bipedal ape in North America. Let me put it this way, if the sasquatch were a murder suspect, he’d’ve been executed years ago. But science insists on a smoking gun. In this case, a body or parts of a body. For my part I would have to agree. For no other reason, it would make a definitive identification a lot easier. According to the studies done on hair and stool samples, it cannot be placed in any known primate group. Which would appear to eliminate any connection to known hominids and the great apes. Including Giganthropithecus blacki.

The connection to G. blacki was a wild guess. Based on what I’ve seen in the way of G. blacki reconstructions, and the only two sasquatch’s shown clearly in film and video footage (one each), I’d have to say that the two are only distantly related. About as distantly as Man and gorilla.

So what might the sasquatch be descended from? And yetis and almas for that matter.

-Australopithecus robustus-. Same body plan, same cranial crest…

“Cranial crest?” I can hear some of you ask. The next time you get to see the Patterson film pay attention to the top of the head. Some sasquatch hunters have identified that as a knot of tangled hair. But it looks more to me like the skull crest you find on the gorilla. An anchor for a set of heavy jaw muscles. So here we have a bipedal ape with a cranial crest and a clumsy walk. What’s the last known higher primate that fit the description? A. Robustus. We now return you to your regular essay…

So how the heck did it get to North America?

It walked. When the sea level gets low enough Beringia becomes dry land, and animals can cross. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again.

At a time when the climate was more salubrious than now stray A. robustus wandered out of Africa into central Eurasia. At the time India had yet to collide with Eurasia, and so the mountains that resulted from that had yet to appear. Which meant that Central Eurasia was a land of rolling hills warm air from the Indian Ocean could penetrate up to the Arctic Ocean. A warmer, wetter, flatter land than now.

So A. robustus moved in and thrived.

“What a minute. Who do you know this happened? Nobody’s found anything like A. robustus in Eurasia.”

Nobody’s looked for it.

Here’s a dirty little secret of Science; we don’t know our own world as well as some think we do. New species are found all the time. Most are rather small, but every once in a while we find something large. The bottle-nosed whale is a recent find, and it seems everytime somebody shakes a tree in Brazil a dozen new species of insect pop up. Given the available resources, both for exploration and discovery, and for the recording of new discoveries, we can’t know the Earth as well as we’d like. So lots of stuff remains unknown. Including any A. robustus fossils that might be lying around in Eurasia, or the fossils of any possible descendents of A. robustus.

Why haven’t we found those fossils? Bad luck for one thing. For another, nobody’s had any reason to go looking for such. A. robustus lived in East Africa, and there is no evidence the species ever moved out of the area.

Much as there was no evidence that Australopithecus as a genus ever moved out of East Africa, until a skull was found in the Republic of Tchad. By accident. Now people are looking for more samples of the “Southern Ape of Tchad” plus any other species of Australopithecus that might have left remains.

Now why do I postulate the presence of A. robustus or A. robustus descendents in Central Eurasia? The sasquatch, the alma, the orang pendak, and the yeti. In order for even one of them to exist its ancestors had to come from somewhere, and there is no evidence of a non-human bipedal ape in ancient times other than Australopithecus. Some claim the sasquatch is descended from a South American ape, but there is no evidence of such. Nor is there any evidence that the ancestor of the orangutan produced a line of bipedal apes. So following the principle of parsimony, I’m going with A. robustus as the sasquatch’s (and the yeti’s and the alma’s and the orang pendak’s) ancestor. I might be wrong, but that will have to wait for additional evidence.

Which leads us to the matter of psychokinesis, the ability to move physical objects without touching them. Levitation can be considered a variation on this. It also leads us to two groups, one of scientists, the other of anti-scientists (if somebody coined the term before I did, they can have the credit for it) who place yowies, sasquatches, and psychokinesis in the same classification. For scientists it’s the “if the other side believes in it, it must be fake” classification. For anti-scientists it’s the “if the other side doesn’t believe in it, it must be real” classification. Which falls under the heading not of bad science, but of “science so atrocious the practitioner should be whacked upside the head and forced to write 10,000 times, ‘I will stop abusing my brain in such an outrageous manner.’”

To be really cruel about it, it’s the same sort of reasoning you get from creationists and Holocaust deniers. “**** the facts, it contradicts my beliefs.”

So you get anti-scientists proclaiming the reality of psychokinesis despite all the evidence against it, and scientists denying the existance of the sasquatch despite all the evidence for it.

My point? The scientific method applies to all subjects. When somebody says that psychokinesis doesn’t exist he’s most likely right because the matter has been scientifically investigated. But when somebody says that the sasquatch doesn’t exist, he’s most likely wrong because the sasquatch has not been scientifically investigated.

To put it another way, nobody’s gone and looked.

Some have declared the footprints, hair, and feces faked,but I have yet to hear of any of that group actually testing the evidence themselves. The reasoning appears to be, “There aint no such thing as the sasquatch, therefor any evidence pointing to its existence must be faked.” A blatant example of false reasoning.

Before you can declare something false with any degree of assurance, you must give it a thorough examination. Whether it be a claim of paranormal ability, or a claim of an unknown animal. The good news is, once the examination has been made you can be fairly sure of your conclusions. The bad news is, it takes time and money. It’s much easier, and cheaper, to state authoritatively, “it can’t be” than it is to go and actually find out.

Unfortunately, such a course of action leaves one open to possible correction in the future. Whereas investigating the matter leads, at best, to conclusive evidence you were right in the first place or, at worst, to conclusive evidence you were wrong. I don’t know about you, but when it’s possible to settle a matter by the simple expedient of a hands-on investigation, I’d rather the matter get investigated.

In other words, if you want to prove to me that the sasquatch does not exist, in spite of all the evidence gathered pointing to its existance, you need to go and look. Test the evidence gathered, and do so honestly. Make an honest assesment and give an honest report, even if it contradicts what you had thought before. That is good science.

Stating that something must be or can’t be because it fits your personal world view is wrong. Plain and simple. Even when that something contradicts what you know to be true. When there is evidence pointing to the existence of an item, that evidence deserves an honest investigation. An explanation, and not an explaining away. Don’t tell us that those feces are bogus, tell us why they are bogus, and be prepared to defend your conclusion.

Science is not only for those things we have acknowledged as true or false, but for those things we still have questions about. Doing it any other way gives a lie to science, and to the things we have learned through science.

I have doubts about psychokinesis because it involves a phenomenon that has yet to be proven to exist. I have doubts about the yowie both because (as far as I know) no physical evidence other than possible tracks have been found, and there is no way that I can see of it reaching Australia in the first place. I have accepted the existence of the sasquatch because there is hair and fecal evidence along with the tracks, and there is a way by which the animal’s ancestors could have reached North America. And because no one, as yet, has done a damn thing to prove that the evidence points to something else, or that all the evidence is fake.

To all those who claim the sasquatch is imaginary; James Randi and friends have set up ways by which claims of paranormal abilities can be tested. Can you do no less? Is the very possibility that a manlike ape might be living in North America so frightening you can’t bring yourselves to investigate? Would the existence of the sasquatch overthrow everything you’ve learned? Randi don’t appear to think so of paranormal abilities. If there are telepaths out there, then there are telepaths out there. You learn to deal with it. How could a new species of primate be any different?

So you have your choice, you can either sit there and insist you can’t be wrong, or you can find out once and for all. No more cries of “It can’t exist!”, go out and prove it. How do you do that? You go and you look. The evidence points to the existence of a bipedal ape in North America, you claim it does not. It is up to you to prove that claim, any claim that contradicts the evidence. Provide evidence that you are right instead of empty rhetoric. Show me that the pro sasquatch evidence is faked or has led investigators to false conclusions. Show me the phony, instead of wasting my time with unsubstantiated claims of mis-identification or falsification.

In other words, start acting like scientists, instead of nervous nellies afraid that reality will come unglued because you were wrong about a subject.

The shame lies not in being wrong, but in insisting you must be right despite the evidence against you.

[Unas]

Originally posted by mythusmage
According to the studies done on hair and stool samples, it cannot be placed in any known primate group.What "studies done on hair and stool samples"? Performed by whom? Why do you consider the results to be definitive?
Originally posted by mythusmage
But when somebody says that the sasquatch doesn’t exist, he’s most likely wrong because the sasquatch has not been scientifically investigated.Your reasoning is faulty. Whether something exists or not is independent of whether humans have scientifically investigated it.
Originally posted by mythusmage
In other words, if you want to prove to me that the sasquatch does not exist, in spite of all the evidence gathered pointing to its existance, you need to go and look.No investigation can prove that the sasquatch does not exist. Those who claim that the sasquatch does exist must back up those claims with evidence sufficient to support the claims. Thus far, this has not been done.
Originally posted by mythusmage
Don’t tell us that those feces are bogus, tell us why they are bogus, and be prepared to defend your conclusion.Turn it around. Don't tell us that the feces were deposited by sasquatch, demonstrate that they must have been deposited by sasquatch, and be prepared to defend your conclusion.
Originally posted by mythusmage
I have accepted the existence of the sasquatch because there is hair and fecal evidence along with the tracks, and there is a way by which the animal’s ancestors could have reached North America.Why is fair, feces, and tracks all that is necessary to conclusively demonstrate the existence of sasquatch? Has the existence of any other species ever been conclusively demonstrated with only that much evidence?
Originally posted by mythusmage
No more cries of “It can’t exist!”, go out and prove it.No more cries of "It must exist!" -- go out and prove it.

[kedo1981]

The burden of proof is on the “Bigfoot is out there” crowd.
This constant “if you can’t prove me wrong then if must be true” crap shows ignorance of basic science; and probably a disconnection form reality in general.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Or, How Yowies, Yetis, and Psychokenesis are Equivalent Phenomenon.

Earth actually has one supercontinent, and two island continents. The fact the single supercontinent is coverd in part by water has led us to view it as four separate continents: Africa, Eurasia, North America, and South America. The two island continents are Australia and Antarctica. Keep all this in mind, because it plays a part in the following essay.

- rest of long story deleted on account of absurdity



Sorry - this statement is so so wrong. The continents are parts of tectonic plates. There are >20 plates which make up the outer part of the Earth, but only 7 really big ones. Of these, North America is part of one, separate from Eurasia, which is part of another, separate from South America, wihich is separate from Antarctica, which is separate from Australia (which is part of a really big plate which includes India, but not Eurasia proper). You can find this basic information in any Introduction to Geology textbook. Starting your story off with such a glaring error with the fundamental background facts is really not a good way to convince anyone you have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

[rockyroad]

oops, sorry - missed one. Africa is also on a separate tectonic plate, which is not part of the Eurasian plate, or any other plate with another continent on it.

There have been supercontinents in the Earth's history, but the last one broke up about 250-200 million years ago; There is not a supercontinent today; if anything you have it completely backwards, we are at a time of nearly maximum dispersal of the continental fragments (the maximum was probably about 60-70 million years ago, before India rammed into Eurasia to form the Himalayas)

[garys_2k]

I predict this is a drive-by posting and we'll never hear back from "mythusmage" to defend his (obvious) mistakes.

The Americas and Eurasia are part of the same continent? Uh, please explain the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Lots of other logical errors and burden-of-proof mistakes. Oh well, it's all because scientists are too closed minded.

[Uther]

For a graphical representation...

<img src=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/volc/fig37.gif>

-Uther

[rockyroad]

Good job Uther - guess I could have done that and saved 100 words or so ! :(

[Goshawk]

I suppose it would be totally pointless to mention to Mythusmage the tiny little inconvenient fact that the guy who "discovered" Bigfoot made the whole thing up.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134589898_raywallaceobit05m.html
Lovable trickster created a monster with Bigfoot hoax
By Bob Young
Seattle Times staff reporter


Bigfoot is dead. Really.

"Ray L. Wallace was Bigfoot. The reality is, Bigfoot just died," said Michael Wallace about his father, who died of heart failure Nov. 26 in a Centralia nursing facility. He was 84.

The truth can finally be told, according to Mr. Wallace's family members. He orchestrated the prank that created Bigfoot in 1958.

Some experts suspected Mr. Wallace had planted the footprints that launched the term "Bigfoot." But Mr. Wallace and his family had never publicly admitted the 1958 deed until now.

< snip >

It was in August 1958 in Humboldt County, Calif., that Jerry Crew, a bulldozer operator for Wallace Construction, saw prints of huge naked feet circling and walking away from his rig.

The Humboldt Times in Eureka, Calif., ran a front-page story on the prints and coined the term "Bigfoot."

According to family members, Mr. Wallace smirked. He had asked a friend to carve the 16-inch-long feet. Then he and his brother Wilbur had slipped them on and created the footprints as a prank, family members said.

Is there any reason why the continent shapes have a similar shape as the shapes of their plates?

[rwald]

The only one that actually does is Africa...the rest are different.

[espritch]

I predict this is a drive-by posting and we'll never hear back from "mythusmage" to defend his (obvious) mistakes.


Just an FYI. Mythusmage first addressed this issue in a couple of posts on a thread in the "Latest Commentary" section (starting at the 5'th post in the thread):

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12589

So he's not necessarily a hit and run poster. He apparently just decided to move the conversation to the science forum.

I suppose it would be totally pointless to mention to Mythusmage the tiny little inconvenient fact that the guy who "discovered" Bigfoot made the whole thing up.


I suspect it would. While doing a little research on Google for a reply to Mythusmage, I found several pro big foot sites that complained that Wallace was a well known prankster and had fooled no one in the bigfoot research community and that the press was exaggerating the importance of this story. I didn't check to see if any of these claims about his prankish behavior predated the breaking of the story Goshawk linked to (not material to my own argument). I have my suspicions of course. ;)

[fishbob]

Find one. Show me. Then I will accept it. (minimalist version of the scientific method)

This applies equally to Sasquatches, Unicorns, Dragons, Space Aliens, Ghosts, and Honest Politicians

[Agammamon]

Didn't the news report a few months ago about the guy who started the Bigfoot hoax?

[Agammamon]

Disregard my last.

I suppose I should read ALL of the posts before chiming in.

[gmol]

Originally posted by Whodini
Is there any reason why the continent shapes have a similar shape as the shapes of their plates?

I don't see it....?
Which continent are you talking about?

I think the African does, and the Eurasian and the Australian/Indian one does, towards the bottom of Australia.

[fishbob]

In some cases, the edge of the continent is the edge of the plate. Otherwise, it is probably coincidence.

[gmol]

A very reasonable guess IMHO is that these
are physically continous surfaces as such it's not terribly surprising that contour outlines are self similar, especially if they formed in a layered fashion .

I still really don't see it though...

Originally posted by Whodini
I think the African does, and the Eurasian and the Australian/Indian one does, towards the bottom of Australia.

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by Unas
What "studies done on hair and stool samples"? Performed by whom? Why do you consider the results to be definitive?

Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel (http://www.discovery.com) web site. I must confess to a porous memory, and sasquatch hunter and cryptozoology sites are not the best sources of information.

Now, the studies point to an unkown primate. "Sasquatch" is as good a name as any in my opinion.:)

Your reasoning is faulty. Whether something exists or not is independent of whether humans have scientifically investigated it.
No investigation can prove that the sasquatch does not exist. Those who claim that the sasquatch does exist must back up those claims with evidence sufficient to support the claims. Thus far, this has not been done.

But, science can help confirm that something exists. BTW, contrary to your claim that we can't prove the sasquatch doesn't exist, doing so would actually be rather easy. How? By investigating to see what else could've provided all that evidence. Maybe it is deer hair or bear ****. How do you find out? You test it. Not just one lab, but a number of labs, and when those labs come up with the same results, even if all the results are "unknown primate", you accept the results. Properly applied science will give you answers, but they won't always be the answers you want.

Turn it around. Don't tell us that the feces were deposited by sasquatch, demonstrate that they must have been deposited by sasquatch, and be prepared to defend your conclusion.
Why is fair, feces, and tracks all that is necessary to conclusively demonstrate the existence of sasquatch? Has the existence of any other species ever been conclusively demonstrated with only that much evidence?

If only. I'd love to have the resources to head to sasquatch country and do a multi-year study. (Any sponsors out there?) Now hair, feces, and tracks (along with calls, which I forgot up till now) were enough to convince me, but I can understand the need for an actual specimen. For one thing, an examination of that specimen would be a great help in a positive identification.

In case you haven't heard, one species was recently confirmed using only genetic material. We did have specimens to start with, but until some genetic testing was done there was some controversy over whether the forest elephant was a separate species from the savannah elephant or not.

So what do we have that points to the sasquatch? Tracks (which could be faked or from another animal), hair (which could be from another animal), feces (which, again, could be from another animal), and calls (which could be produced by another animal). I think it's about damn time we went and found out.

No more cries of "It must exist!" -- go out and prove it.

Resources. As I said above, I'm willing to haul this 48 (soon to be 49) year old body up to sasquatch country and take a look. To do that I'm going to need funding (Kook repellent is going to be a big ticket item.:D)

BTW, I agree with you. The sasquatch doesn't have to exist. Much as nothing else has to exist in this universe. It either does or it doesn't. I want the question settled and that'll take a real investigation, not the "lets wander around a bit and show off the new toys we picked up at Radio Shack" crap you've got going on now. Let's apply some real science to the subject, and damn the extremists.

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by kedo1981
The burden of proof is on the “Bigfoot is out there” crowd.
This constant “if you can’t prove me wrong then if must be true” crap shows ignorance of basic science; and probably a disconnection form reality in general.

Do you think about the things you do think about? (I've never seen the play or the movie, maybe one day.:))

Evidence has been gathered, until that evidence has been shown conclusively to be fake or misinterpreted, I will continue to accept it. Ignoring or disregarding evidence that supports a subject you find uncomfortable or distatseful shows ignorance of basic science, and may indicate a disconnect from reality.

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by Goshawk
I suppose it would be totally pointless to mention to Mythusmage the tiny little inconvenient fact that the guy who "discovered" Bigfoot made the whole thing up.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134589898_raywallaceobit05m.html


Why are you so stupid?

Proposition: Ray Wallace faked every sasquatch footprint.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Other than a newspaper that is. Can you show that all impressions identified as sasquatch tracks were faked, much less faked by Mr. Wallace?

And what about the hair and the feces, identified as coming from an "unknown primate"? Or the recording of calls from an unknown animal? Or, for that matter, the flora disturbed much as flora is disturbed by gorillas in Africa. (Sorry folks, but my memory is fallible and I am prone to remember things in bits and pieces. BTW, that foliage could've been disturbed by bears, but we won't know until we look.)

Child, your reliance on a news story to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel (http://www.discovery.com) web site. I must confess to a porous memory, and sasquatch hunter and cryptozoology sites are not the best sources of information.

Now, the studies point to an unkown primate. "Sasquatch" is as good a name as any in my opinion.:)


I am quite willing to look at the evidence that convinced you, but you have to understand that we're not going to look it up for you. Which studies point to an unknown primate? Given that the evidence I've seen is very unconvincing, I'd be very interested in knowing which evidence convinced you.

BTW, contrary to your claim that we can't prove the sasquatch doesn't exist, doing so would actually be rather easy. How? By investigating to see what else could've provided all that evidence. Maybe it is deer hair or bear ****.

I'm afraid this doesn't help; Unas is quite right that you can't prove non-existence. Science does not make an observation, make a statement about what it might be, and then try to prove it by showing that it isn't anything else. This simply doesn't work because it's impossible to know all of the possible things it could be (after all, if we already knew everything we wouldn't be here to begin with). Maybe the disconnected bits of evidence lumped under 'sasquatch' actually point to a dozen different unknown, unrelated phenomena. Just because it's unknown doesn't mean it's bigfoot.

How do you find out? You test it. Not just one lab, but a number of labs, and when those labs come up with the same results, even if all the results are "unknown primate", you accept the results.

Still unaware of these results. Links or references?

Properly applied science will give you answers, but they won't always be the answers you want.

Now this I couldn't agree with more. :D

[mythusmage]

Continents:

Let me get this straight, one tectonic plate per continent, right? Now I live in San Diego, CA. A spot west of the San Andreas Fault and thus on the Pacific Plate. Which means that San Diego is not in North America. Pity the poor children who keep misplacing San Diego in those geography tests.:)

I now introduce something new (to you at least), the continental shelf.

"The continental shelf Uncle Mythusmage?"

The continental shelf. You see, good children, the continents are partially flooded. Off our shores is more continent (with a few exceptions). In most places the edge of a continent is under water, sometimes a lot of water.

One place where you have flooded continent is under the Bering Strait. Some call this "Beringia". It connects Eurasia to North America. South America is connected to North America by dry land, while Africa was connected to Eurasia by dry land until the Suez Canal was dug (and when the Suez Canal fills in some day, will be again).

See how this works? When you talk about continents you include the continental shelf.

Ray Wallace:

Ray Wallace created the Sasquatch hoax What a load of ****. You call yourselves skeptics? People, I haven't seen a more credulous bunch since I got a look at the studio audience for Crossing Over. If you're shining examples of the skeptical community, then I was Bonaparte in a past life.

Ray Wallace created the sasquatch hoax. Prove it. Where is your evidence? Who made the tracks? All of them. Where is the hair from? The feces? Who or what made the calls? Who or what is in those photos, films, and videos? Do you have evidence to support that claim?

SHOW ME THE PHONY!

None of that, "well it seems to me." None of that, "It looks like." I want evidence. Good solid evidence.

I'm willing to go look. I get a sponsor I will go look. You ready to join me? You ready to test your beliefs? Or would you rather live in your fantasy world where science and the scientific method don't apply to things that make you uncomfortable?

(And for those who'd like more ammo against me (as if the following had any relevance to the subject at hand):

(I'm on disablity thanks to clinical depression, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. I read fantasy and science fiction. I write material for a fantasy roleplaying game. I am convinced that the scientific method can be applied to any subject.

(Make of it what you will.)

People, you want to convince me that the evidence gathered so far showing the existence of an ape-like creature in North America is fake, you're going to have to do better than a newspaper story about a hoaxter.

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by FutileJester
Still unaware of these results. Links or references?

You're right, I do need to look that stuff up. Thing is, it really needs to be confirmed, and when you consider how strident some can get when the subject comes up, the reluctance of many scientists to get anywhere near it becomes understandable.

Extremism in support of a cause is just as damaging to that cause as extremism against it.

Off I go to look stuff up. Have you, good reader, any leads (pro or anti sasquatch) send me an email and I'll give them a look. Leads to print material would also be helpful.

BTW, there is evidence of absence.:D

[Liamo]

Originally posted by mythusmage


Why are you so stupid?

Proposition: Ray Wallace faked every sasquatch footprint.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Other than a newspaper that is. Can you show that all impressions identified as sasquatch tracks were faked, much less faked by Mr. Wallace?
Alan,

Goshawk's contention is, I guess, not that Wallace faked every footprint ever found, but that the first footprints were faked by him and possibly copied by others afterwards.

To refute this argument, you could simply provide evidence of such footprints found before Wallace's.

If you do not, then I'd say the argument is sound.

Liam

[Br000chie]

It seems as though the hair samples aren't such great proof after all. From here (http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm)

January 1998
… Although the ultimate results have not generated a diagnostic sequence of a mitochondrial gene, which might have yielded information on the relationship of the sasquatch to other primates, we nonetheless decided to publish the outcome rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have.

As of January 1998, the article is virtually finished except for some illustrative material and will be shortly submitted to the Journal of Cryptozoology.

W. Henner Fahrenbach Ph.D.

The article is complete just some sketches to add!

March 1998
After lengthy deliberation, we (W. H. Fahrenbach, J. A. Poe, and P. Fuerst), co-authors of the intended article on the Eastern Washington hair found in August, 1995, have decided to withhold submission of the manuscript of the analysis until more DNA from tissue, preferably with attached hair, is obtained. Our studies have not yielded a sequenced mitochondrial gene fragment to determine the phylogenetic affiliation of the creature. The ambiguous results at the present time can, on the one hand, generate misplaced enthusiasm and be quoted as "proof", or, on the other hand, can be used by the opposite camp to criticize and denigrate the results unfairly. …

What? No article? Is it me or is it a little suspicious that he refuses to publish his findings because it may give ammunition to his opponents?

November 1999
… I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise. …

Let's just brush that pesky hair under the carpet, shall we?

[Ladewig]

Ask the folks at the Discovery Channel web site. I must confess to a porous memory, and sasquatch hunter and cryptozoology sites are not the best sources of information.

I tried searching for "sasquatch" and "yeti" on the link you provided and I got no results.

[garys_2k]

My mistake, he's not a drive by poster, but is instead redirecting us to find his "proof." Yaawwnn.

Yes, it is true, too, that Siberia and Alaska were both above ground at one time and migration did occur. I think the existence of native Americans has that pretty well established.

But if all he wants to do is come here and claim science is hypocritical because it won't conduct an all-out search for sasquach, well, that's just too bad. Go yell at someone else.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Continents:

Let me get this straight, one tectonic plate per continent, right? Now I live in San Diego, CA. A spot west of the San Andreas Fault and thus on the Pacific Plate. Which means that San Diego is not in North America. Pity the poor children who keep misplacing San Diego in those geography tests.:)

- rest clipped as irrelevant rambling


You're getting closer - a bit better then your original post with the single supercontinent and two island continent absurdity, which I see you've wisely abandoned.

Yes - San Diego etc. is on the Pacific Plate - that's "Plate" as in tectonic plate - get it ??? Has nothing to do with geographic names at all - you can be on the Pacific Plate and still part of this artifical geographic name we teach kidlets called North America. The North American Plate is a whole different entity versus the geographic North America - you're confusing the scientific plate tectonic name from mere geography.

As to your bizarre Australopithicus Robustus crossing on the Siberia-Alaska land bridge - you really need to look at the timing of these events. The low sea level of the last glacial maximum which caused the land bridge occurred about 14-18,0000 years ago - that's years, not millions of years. However, I believe all known specimans of A. Robustus are in the 2.5 to 4 MILLION year age range - coincidiing with the earliest Homo Sapian. Thus you have a small problem in timing - but what's a few million years here or there???

By the way - let's just ignore the millions of years difference problem. You suggest no Yowie in Australia because no land bridge - also not true. Australia has a land bridge to New Guinea duing the last glacial maximum. From the west tip of New Guinea to Timor and then the rest of the Indonesian island and on to the Malay Peinsula are either walks or very short island-hops at the sea level minimum - the next island is in sight - just takes a log to float on and a dare from your friend Og who says (grunts) "betcha can't make it to that next island " and before you know it - you're drinking decent beer in some Kings Cross pub in Sydney and wondering why that gorgeous women coming on to you has a fairly prominant Adams Apple (ok, this happened to me - but this is another story).

[Thumper]

Originally posted by rockyroad

this artifical geographic name we teach kidlets called North America. The North American Plate is a whole different entity versus the geographic North America -



kidlet? What's a kidlet? Any relation to a cutlet?


On a more serious note, just to reiterate most of what's been said here, the burden of proof is on those who say the phenomenon (creature) exists. Hair, stool, DNA samples all help with that, but, as someone who lived in the Great Northwest and who followed Bigfoot religiously, there is NO scientificly-tested evidence indicating bigfoot exists. None whatsoever.

The cryptozoologists tested everything they found. What was tested in reputable labs was found to be bear and other known mammal-based.

As much as I would love to have this unknown great ape roaming the woods of my home state, it simply doesn't exist. Proof?

How about some simple biological logic? No remains of one has ever been found. That indicates a small population. A small population runs into trouble with inbreeding and its associated probelms. These genetic problems lead to species-extinction in short order.

It's been shown that the 50/500 rule is very predictive on species longevity. A population of 500 is needed for long-term species survival. A population of 50 is needed for short-term survival. in both cases, the number is predicated on no human involvement.

Draw your conclusions.

[Goshawk]

Why are you so stupid?Why are you so rude?Child, your reliance on a news story to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.Child, your reliance on what you see on the Discovery Channel--which I might point out is an entertainment network, not a science network--to support your opinion regarding a subject tells me a lot about your critical reasoning skills, and none of it good. Reality does not exist to make you happy.

You have shown us NO evidence for Sasquatch. You have shown us NO evidence for the existence of feces, hair, calls, whether or not any of it has ever been tested. All we have is YOUR word for it that "feces, hair, recordings of calls" exist. The fact that you say you saw it on the Discovery Channel does not count as "evidence". Give us links to websites that prove the existence of any hair, feces, recordings of calls. Then we'll talk.

It's not enough for you to tell us, "Go look it up on the Discovery Channel website."

My proof that Ray Wallace made it all up is the statements of his family members. Did you read the link? Are you going to maintain that it's all a sort of reverse hoax, that his family members are making up the story that their Uncle Ray made up Bigfoot? And the picture of his nephew holding the "actual alderwood foot used to make the prints", that's just a prop in their hoax? Why would they do that? What would be their motive? They certainly aren't cashing in on it--they'd stand to make more money and get more publicity by being the relatives of the man who really did discover Bigfoot, than by being the relatives of the man who "invented" Bigfoot.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Or, How Yowies, Yetis, and Psychokenesis are Equivalent Phenomenon.


Yaois?

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by mythusmage

In case you haven't heard, one species was recently confirmed using only genetic material. We did have specimens to start with, but until some genetic testing was done there was some controversy over whether the forest elephant was a separate species from the savannah elephant or not.



What do you mean "genetic material" The thread was about faeces and hair. Are you saying that Forest Elephant is only known from faeces and hair? There are many thousands of them in Cameroon, Gabon, DRC etc if you want to go and have a look at living specimens (hard to find mind you). Or, as I suspect, are you saying that the Forest Elephant was only identified as a separate species through genetic testing? (This would be true of many thousands of species BTW).

[Zep]

For what it's worth, folks, there are no real live Yowies in Australia. That's all a complete and utter aboriginal myth on the same level as, say, the "Boogieman!" :eek: No strange creatures roaming the Queensland bush and jungle (well, there are, but we know they are just failed politicians on the run from the law...:D)

I've posted on other threads here about Bigfoot, that the answer is not just to mount a posse and go scour the Washington/BC woods, but also to use satellite technology to assist. Sure, infrared satellite imaging will pick up every bear, moose and deer in the area, but it should also be able to put a small team in a helicopter within a few hundred yards of any potential bigfoot creature. And all the easier to pick them up if they group together! The USA has the technology, and these days we know it has the will to hunt down a single creature in a hostile environment! :rolleyes:

Really, this should be easy, mythusmage, because I have been told that there is "reliable evidence" that there have been 10,000+ confirmed sightings of Bigfoot. And before you get your hopes up, that's one sighting per day, every day, for the last 30 years...sorta silly when you think of it like that, isn't it!

Mythusmage, the reality of the situation is simply that if you make a scientific claim then it is up to you to prove it so, not anybody else to disprove it. "Proof of a negative" is one of those things that logically cannot be done, and so carries no weight as an argument. Think about it for a bit and you will see this is so...

Zep

[Ladewig]

Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

In addition to those trying to revolutionize the thinking of the world with new ideas, there are those who are dying to crush the evidence of some other new or long standing theory. Science is self correcting, ie "cold fussion". Scientists are like wolves, eager to rip each other apart to show who's dominant. With a self-correcting, loose collection like that it's hard for there to be conspiracy or hypocrisy.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Thread title: Hypocrisy in Science.

I would classify the thread title as being inaccurate. No matter how much mainstream science believes something, someone coming along with tangible, testable evidence trumps everyone. Almost all scientists dream of bringing forth some provable, revolutionary theory. Anyone who does so goes straight to the head of the class, and gets naming rights for the theory, object, phenomenon, or living specimin ("Homo Rockyroadus" or even "Homo Itoldyousous"). Fame, fortune, and prizes await those who provide tangible, testable evidence. No matter how closed-minded science might appear, if you have the real goods, you win.

Hey !! That's " Hetero Rockyroadus " thank your very much!
otherwise - nice post

[mythusmage]

International Bigfoot Society (http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com)

There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide. We now introduce you to a magic word, it's called research.

You've heard of research, it's how Darwin gathered the information he needed to prove his Theory of Evolution. It's how real scientists get their PHDs. (It's why my mom switched from rhino reproduction to a bacterium for her masters, her original subject was literally getting nowhere.:p)

The evidence is out there, and there are people you can get in touch with about that evidence. The next task is to learn if that evidence is valid or not. That will take research. You know, gathering up that evidence, putting it under scrutiny, and separating the real (if any) from the fraudulent. It's what a scientist would do.:D

Yes boys and girls, and college sophmores of all ages, it means making an effort. It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site. It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies. It means doing some work.

And for those of you from an alternate reality, you can prove a negative. All it takes is some effort. I'll give you a simple proposition to start off with, "Man cannot levitate." Show your work.

BTW, if you're wondering why I'm doing this. Since you've persuaded me that sweet reason won't work (gosh, you've proved a negative already, aint you smart?:)), I've now made it my goal to get somebody so pissed off he'll go to the state of Washington in search of evidence that I'm wrong. Make sure you get funding, the research could take a few years.:p

"I just got my Bachelors, I know everything."

"I just got my Masters, I don't know anything."

"I got my PHD. Bad news, neither does anybody else."

(Stay tuned for my big essay: On Science, Skepticism, and the Sasquatch)

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by mythusmage
International Bigfoot Society (http://www.internationalbigfootsociety.com)

There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide. We now introduce you to a magic word, it's called research.

...snip...

The evidence is out there, and there are people you can get in touch with about that evidence. The next task is to learn if that evidence is valid or not.

From the link A few trolls were shape shifters. Thus they were able to attain both human and animal form

LOL

It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site.

You should take your own advice.

It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies.

You really don't understand the phrase "burden of proof", do you?

----
You really don't understand the phrase "burden of proof", do you?
----


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

No wonder why they always refer to it like it is a commandment or something.

Get real.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by mythusmage
And for those who'd like more ammo against me.....So you're a masochist?
But what if we're not sadists.

Originally posted by mythusmage
I'm on disablity thanks to clinical depression, anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. So? You're a sexual deviant and a psychological cripple. So what? As long as you don't harm anyone, myth.

BTW, just as a matter of interest, do you see social welfare as a RIGHT or are you grateful to all us taxpayers for helping to keep you alive. I mean I don't want you to fall all over yourself with gratitude but......

Originally posted by mythusmage
I write material for a fantasy roleplaying game. Oops, sorry, I thought you implied you were on welfare. Take that all back myth.

BTW, interesting name.

regards,
BillyJoe :cool:

[Zep]

Oh dear. Another one who doesn't understand how real science works...

OK, mythusmage, here's point by point.

[list=1]
There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide.
Oh yeah! Websites on bigfoot are THE LAST WORD on hominid research! *cough* ;) And perhaps you should read through this site a bit more carefully. NO actual evidence worth talking about AT ALL. Lotsa hearsay and anecdotes and meetings of like-minded nutcases is all. People just WISHING that they have seen one.
You've heard of research, it's how Darwin gathered the information he needed to prove his Theory of Evolution. It's how real scientists get their PHDs.
It's what bigfoot "societies" and websites DON'T do when investigating their own claims. Have a look at that crap, will you?! I mean, honestly! :rolleyes: It's SO FAR from real research that it doesn't even make the local newspapers.
Yes boys and girls, and college sophmores of all ages, it means making an effort. It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site. It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies. It means doing some work.
No, it doesn't. It means getting organised with cameras and tape-recorders and shovels and going out into the woods and getting something solid to show the world. THAT'S what scientists do! Or didn't you know that?
"Man cannot levitate." Show your work.
levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. Did you see the people on board Mir or the International Space stations at any time? Right there on TV for the world to see. Sure looked like people levitating to me... Sorry, you lose. Negative case NOT proven. Please play again.
I've now made it my goal to get somebody so pissed off he'll go to the state of Washington in search of evidence that I'm wrong.
I thought that was MY job! But since you are probably a lot closer than me to that part of the world, why can't that somebody be you?
[/list=1]
And just so you don't get the wrong idea: I'm a scientist be trade, and I will welcome ANY and ALL properly researched evidence you produce that bigfoot exists. You will be famous, and I will be able to say that I wrote to you on a website once upon a time.

BTW, if you want to base research conclusions purely around the volumes of anecdotal evidence, there is WAY more extant today indicating that bigfoot is fake than there is the opposite. But if you want to ignore that "evidence" then feel free! :)

Zep

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mythusmage
To be really cruel about it, it’s the same sort of reasoning you get from creationists and Holocaust deniers. “**** the facts, it contradicts my beliefs.”

So you get anti-scientists proclaiming the reality of psychokinesis despite all the evidence against it, and scientists denying the existance of the sasquatch despite all the evidence for it.

My point? The scientific method applies to all subjects. When somebody says that psychokinesis doesn’t exist he’s most likely right because the matter has been scientifically investigated. But when somebody says that the sasquatch doesn’t exist, he’s most likely wrong because the sasquatch has not been scientifically investigated.



What evidence is there against psychokinesis? Do you have appropriate references?? Indeed a couple of days ago it was claimed it is impossible for there to be any evidence against psychokinesis if it is of a certain limited nature (due to the possible relatively small statistically deviation from chance in micropyshokinesis)

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
You really don't understand the phrase "burden of proof", do you?
----


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

From the OED online, the first known use of the phrase was;
1593 HOOKER Eccl. Pol. IV. iv. §2 Wks. 1841 I. 360 The burden of proving doth rest on them. .
Hooker, as a proponent of natural law was hardly what I would call a sceptic. His essay Of the laws of Ecclesiastical polity was "an attempt to persuade the Puritans to conform to the laws of the English Church". Not exactly a classic sceptical position.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by mythusmage
Ray Wallace created the Sasquatch hoax What a load of ****. You call yourselves skeptics? People, I haven't seen a more credulous bunch since I got a look at the studio audience for Crossing Over. If you're shining examples of the skeptical community, then I was Bonaparte in a past life.


Yes "skeptics" will sieze any apparent evidence supporting thier beliefs, no matter how dodgy that "evidence" might be, and proclaim that it proves their interpretation of the particular phenomenon concerned was correct all along. One could give countless examples eg the claom made by Doug and Dave in the 80's in the UK that they had actually created all or most crop circles LMAO. I think most believers and most "skeptics" represent 2 sides of the same coin. They are both incredibly naive and gullible and seemingly incapable of exercising a modicum of rational thought.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Zep
Zep [/B]

"Proof of a negative" is one of those things that logically cannot be done, and so carries no weight as an argument. Think about it for a bit and you will see this is so...



"Skeptics" always say this and I simply can't understand why they're allowed to get away with it. And indeed why they're allowed to get away with so many other things as well!

Look it's quite simple. If as you say "proof of a negative" logically cannot be obtained, then you should be logically be able to demonstrate this.

So do so.

[Beausoleil]

Originally posted by Whodini
I think the African does, and the Eurasian and the Australian/Indian one does, towards the bottom of Australia.

The key is to remember that oceanic crust is created at constructive plate boundaries and subducted at destructive boundaries, while continental crust is not subducted but rams into other bits when the oceanic crust between them is destroyed.

Take the Atlantic plate edges from that figure. Millions of years ago the continental crust of north and south america was butted up against that of europe and africa. They began to be pushed apart as new oceanic crust was formed at the ridge in the middle of the Atlanitic. This ridge is the edge of the plates shown in the figure, while the crust between them and the edge of the 'continent' has been made at the ridge over geologic time, 'pushing' (not really) the continental crust apart. So it's no surprise that a constructive plate boundary mimics the shape of the continental crust on either side.

Does that make sense?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
You really don't understand the phrase "burden of proof", do you?
----


Do you understand that skeptics made up that phrase themselves?

No wonder why they always refer to it like it is a commandment or something.

Get real.

Yea, and it's always the case that anyone taking issue with their beliefs has the burden of proof. Never any of the "skeptics" beliefs. What a remarkable coincidence! :rolleyes:

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yea, and it's always the case that anyone taking issue with their beliefs has the burden of proof.False.

It is, however, always the case that those who make extraordinary claims regarding the existence of paranormal phenomena are required to shoulder the burden of proof for those claims.

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

Clearly, the saying "you can't prove a negative" doesn't always apply.
For example, many mathematical statements can be proven to be false.
However, in the context of this thread it is true.
In other words, you cannot prove that Big Foot doesn't exist.

Agreed?

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Look it's quite simple. If as you say "proof of a negative" logically cannot be obtained, then you should be logically be able to demonstrate this.


It's not that it is impossible to prove a negative, its just very very difficult. As we are talking about animals (Sasquatch) let me use another animal, the Pink-headed Duck to illustrate my point. The Pink-headed Duck is/ was a resident of the deep forests of northern Burma, Bangladesh, India etc. There have been no credible sighting of this bird since about 1903 (I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment, but if you want the references let me know and I'll dig them out). The chances are that it is extinct. Now, in order to prove the statement that "The Pink-headed Duck no longer exists" (ie a negative statement), I would have to scour every square foot of northern Burma etc in order to see if it was there or not. From experience of birding in heavy forest I can also tell you that even if it was there it would be extremely hard to find, so not seeing one would still not really be proof of non-existence. The opposite statement, of course, would be childishly simple to prove. "The Pink-headed Duck exists, and here it is".

[mythusmage]

Originally posted by Zep
Oh dear. Another one who doesn't understand how real science works...

OK, [b]mythusmage, here's point by point.

[list=1]
There's a link for you. Now you can take a look at the evidence they (and other sites) provide.
Oh yeah! Websites on bigfoot are THE LAST WORD on hominid research! *cough* ;) And perhaps you should read through this site a bit more carefully. NO actual evidence worth talking about AT ALL. Lotsa hearsay and anecdotes and meetings of like-minded nutcases is all. People just WISHING that they have seen one.

After some research I learned pretty much the same thing you did, the site I mentioned previously is not all that reliable.

Bigfoot Field Research Organization (http://www.bfro.net)

That's a better site. A much better site. The people behind it are applying scientific methodology to the seach. They also have a data base of reports.

By and large I have to agree re the majority of cryptozoologists. To get anywhere as a field of scientific inquiry cryptozoology needs its own Copernican Revolution. For that to happen scientist, especially zoologists, need to get involved in one way or another.

I haven't read all the reports, but I did read a recent one from Colorado. #1160 (I think) in the series.

Holmes: Dr. Watson, what was the fantastical thing in the reporter's story of his sasquatch encounter.?

Watson: There was nothing fantastical in his report of the two sasquatches.

Holmes: That, Dr. Watson, is the fantastical thing.

You've heard of research, it's how Darwin gathered the information he needed to prove his Theory of Evolution. It's how real scientists get their PHDs.
It's what bigfoot "societies" and websites DON'T do when investigating their own claims. Have a look at that crap, will you?! I mean, honestly! :rolleyes: It's SO FAR from real research that it doesn't even make the local newspapers.

Not all researchers. Read the story of the skooke print at BFRO (http://www.bfro.net) There are people out there doing real research, you just have to dig through a ton of dreck to find them.

Yes boys and girls, and college sophmores of all ages, it means making an effort. It means going to web sites other than the newest "web cam dorm" site. It means sending email to folks who believe in strange things and seeing if you can winkle out anything of scientific value from their replies. It means doing some work.
No, it doesn't. It means getting organised with cameras and tape-recorders and shovels and going out into the woods and getting something solid to show the world. THAT'S what scientists do! Or didn't you know that?

They also get speeding tickets while trying to a Masters on geriatric sexual behavior in southern white rhinos.:) (Long story, write me privately)

Guess what? The folks at BFRO are. (I'm sure you can find their link somewhere in this message.:D)

"Man cannot levitate." Show your work.
levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. Did you see the people on board Mir or the International Space stations at any time? Right there on TV for the world to see. Sure looked like people levitating to me... Sorry, you lose. Negative case NOT proven. Please play again.

That's not levitation, that's taking advantage of local conditions. Try the same tricks at sea level.

I've now made it my goal to get somebody so pissed off he'll go to the state of Washington in search of evidence that I'm wrong.
I thought that was MY job! But since you are probably a lot closer than me to that part of the world, why can't that somebody be you?
[/list=1]

I wish, but I don't have the resources. Funding would be nice. A steady supply of my medication is a must. As is a good 35mm still camera because I want to take lots of pictures. Tons of pictures. Pictures in all sorts of conditions, at all times of day and night, and over a long period of time. Why? Because the longer you try to maintain a hoax as complicated as a man in a gorilla suit, the harder it becomes to sustain.

And just so you don't get the wrong idea: I'm a scientist be trade, and I will welcome ANY and ALL properly researched evidence you produce that bigfoot exists. You will be famous, and I will be able to say that I wrote to you on a website once upon a time.



Oh, the evidence is available, it's a specimen we need.

BTW, if you want to base research conclusions purely around the volumes of anecdotal evidence, there is WAY more extant today indicating that bigfoot is fake than there is the opposite. But if you want to ignore that "evidence" then feel free! :)

Zep

But why would anecdotes saying that sasquatches don't exist be more credible than those saying they do? In either case corroboration would be nice, along with forensic evidence. Without either you need to look into motivation. Why did the subject make the statements? Were they made to support strongly held beliefs? Or are they a recounting of events that either happened, or the subject strongly believes happened? A simple, "How do you know this?" can provide loads of information.

Besides, there's far more forensics supporting the pro sasquatch tales than the no sasquatch ones. Matter of fact, I have yet to see any forensic evidence supporting the no sasquatch position. Where fake evidence is concerned, other than a few "feet" produced by Ray Wallace the only tests I've seen performed has found the evidence to be valid. BFRO has a link to a documentary on the subject, which includes sasquatch footage from three sources, including the Patterson Film. That's the Discovery Channel documentary I was thinking about.

BTW, when reading a first hand account of a sasquatch encounter consider how mundane it is. Other than meeting a very large mammal in the woods that is.:) No lost time. No levitation, teleportation, telepathy, or visions of {eldritch music}THE FUTURE{/eldritch music}. Just a close encounter of the problematic primate kind.

Something to consider: The next time you see the Patterson film (there are new copies available, made from the original footage). Ask yourself this; if it is a man in a costume, where did the hoaxsters find a man that large? For that matter, why haven't the hoaxsters spoken up by now? I've got more to say on the subject, but it needs more work before it'll be ready for publication.

[Zep]

mythusmage, sorry for the delay in responding (personal hospital issue) but I can see that you are starting to see the light. OK, let's walk you carefully.

1. The BigFoot Field Research Organisation, as with all other similar groups, has yet to provide any evidence that is not explained by more likely means (wild cats of many species, bears, other predators, even birds). The OVERWHELMING amount of evidence for bigfoot has been discovered to be clearly and unequivocally hoax - the hoaxers even confess to the same. Put simply, the method being used by these groups is that if a footprint or sound is NOT the wildcat/bear/puma/bird/beaver/whatever they saw last Thursday, and the hoaxers say they haven't been in the area (cross their hearts and hope to die;)), then it MUST be bigfoot! Would YOU believe that to be valid research???

2. The fibres from the Skookum Cast were found to be elk, as were the rest of the "prints" in the cast. See http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/bfoot29.htm for another report, also illuminating the overwhelmingly UNscientific methodology used by the "bigfoot hunters".

3. Speeding tickets? Southern white rhinos? Wha...? :confused: Oh, I see. Some other types of "scientists" also indulge in white lies and short-cuts, etc, in pursuit of degrees. Stale news, but sure, I agree! Kick their butts too! Doesn't make bigfoot real though...

4. "Taking advantage of local conditions" to show levitation? Sorry, but that wasn't a limitation stipulated in your original request. Your question was the problem, not my answer. So the situation is still that I have demonstrated levitation for you, ergo you have not proven this negative.

5. I would hope sincerely that a proper bigfoot research effort would very quickly dispel the guy-in-a-gorilla-suit situation. Sure, "the truth is out there", but the situation right now is that the guy-in-a-gorilla-suit is pretty much the best evidence produced so far...

6. Sorry, but the evidence on the table from the BFRO is NOT conclusive of anything at all to do with a bigfoot. Sure, there are a lot of things breaking branches and screeching in the night, and thousands of variants on footprints. But so far there is little CONCLUSIVE and SUSTAINABLE evidence it is bigfoot doing it.

7. Re anecdotes for both sides: I was merely making the point that if we are basing the veracity of the claims purely on the preponderance of anecdotes for either case, the vast majority of them would fall in the "no bigfoot" side. So if you believe that more anecdotes equals more likely to be true then we are being drawn inexorably towards the conclusion that bigfoot does NOT exist. The issue now is either to agree with this line of reasoning, in which case poof! goes bigfoot, or to continue to believe in bigfoot, in which case the above reasoning is no longer sustainable. Myself, I find the reasoning illogical (OK, I'm a Vulcan! ;))

8. The Patterson Film. Ah yes. So you choose to ignore all the contra evidence from anthropologists, etc, etc, who say that it is clearly a human of average height walking with a normal human gait? All the problematic issues with the "fur" and how it didn't seem real, like it was a suit and not attached to muscles? That Patterson stated in advance that he was going out to film a sasquatch on the day? That he did not film any subsequent footprints of this creature? (it walked through the mud at the edge of a river, on the film) That when it noticed the cameraman (which it did) that it didn't RUN away but continued to walk sedately? (allowing itself to be filmed so easily???) And finally that friends of Patterson have allegedly revealed that it was all a hoax from the beginning? Etc, etc, etc. To my mind there are WAY too many unanswered questions...!!!

Sorry, but the situation is that there is NOT any conclusive evidence of bigfoot...yet. Just a bunch of wacky footprints (one fake set was modelled on an emperor pengiun, no less!) and a bunch of screaming and breaking noises in the forest at night. Sorry, but Boy Scouts staging a prank would be a more rational solution at this stage!

Not that I am prepared to dismiss bigfoot out-of-hand - I don't. The story of the coelocanth is a classic case about how scientists rapidly accept highly startling but utterly convincing evidence. In other words, the bigfoot hunters merely have to habeus corpus...

Zep

[Liamo]

Originally posted by Zep
4. "Taking advantage of local conditions" to show levitation? Sorry, but that wasn't a limitation stipulated in your original request. Your question was the problem, not my answer. So the situation is still that I have demonstrated levitation for you, ergo you have not proven this negative.

Zep,

Unless you definition of levitation reproduced below is wrong, Mythusmage has got a point.
levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity.
Since the astronauts are in a virtually zero-gravity zone, they are not defying gravity, and therefore not levitating. Agreed?

Liam

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What evidence is there against psychokinesis? Do you have appropriate references?? Indeed a couple of days ago it was claimed it is impossible for there to be any evidence against psychokinesis if it is of a certain limited nature (due to the possible relatively small statistically deviation from chance in micropyshokinesis)

Oh, here we go again. You want to play the "reverse the requirements" nonsense.

You want to claim that psychokinesis exists?

THEN YOU PRODUCE SOMEONE WHO CAN DO IT WELL ENOUGH TO WIN Mr. RANDI's PRIZE.

The fact of the matter is that you are supporting the extraordinary claim, so YOU have to provide the evidence. I

Let's hear about it, unInteresting Ian.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes "skeptics" will sieze any apparent evidence supporting thier beliefs, no matter how dodgy that "evidence" might be, and proclaim that it proves their interpretation of the particular phenomenon concerned was correct all along.

Are you in the habit of making unfounded professional accusations against people you don't know?

That's very rude, to say the least. You wonder why I dislike you, and now you know one such reason.

It is still a fact that those making extraordinary claims must absolutely provide extraordinary proof.

[Acrimonious]

Since the astronauts are in a virtually zero-gravity zone, they are not defying gravity, and therefore not levitating. Agreed?


This is a misunderstanding of the way gravity works. There is no such thing as "zero-gravity."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html

The astronauts move at a speed equal to the force of Earth's pull, perpendicular to the Earth's pull.

Basically, the object is in a perpetual free-fall that never hits the ground. Gravity is always affecting them; without it, they would slingshot straight off into space.

In the case of a Geosynchronous orbit, the object stays directly above the exact same spot on the Earth's surface as it orbits. This is as close as you're going to get to "levitation."

[BillyJoe]

Still, "to levitate" is generally taken to mean "to produce by pure willpower/mindpower a force opposing that of gravity".

I don't think orbiting a massive object or floating around in space qualifies.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Acrimonious
This is a misunderstanding of the way gravity works. There is no such thing as "zero-gravity."

Well, it's certainly possible -- at least in theory -- to put some object somewhere into space where the gravity from all other objects sum to zero, and I'd happily say that object is in "zero gravity".

Originally posted by Acrimonious
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/orbv.html

The astronauts move at a speed equal to the force of Earth's pull, perpendicular to the Earth's pull.

Basically, the object is in a perpetual free-fall that never hits the ground. Gravity is always affecting them; without it, they would slingshot straight off into space.

It seems that the term "zero gravity" gets thrown around when the correct term to use would be "weightless". An astronaut inside a spaceship orbiting the earth could correctly be described as weightless with respect to the spaceship. The spaceship, however, would not be weightless in this scenario.

[Chris Haynes]

I will believe that Sasquatch exists when there is in display of its actual hair, photo and other evidence in the Burke Museum:
http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/

Until then I believe that this thread is mistitled.

In the meantime... anyone is welcome to come up and trek through the Cascades looking for a myth. Our local economy will welcome all visiters. All you have to do is to wait for the snow to be cleared out of all the passes (especially on Highway 410, there are truly lovely spots up there to mount an expedition).

You may wish to familiarize yourself with this "documention" of a Sasquatch encounter:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618131574/qid=1050430361/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2190995-6247112?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[aggle_rithm]

Testing falsehood of the statement "Man can levitate"...

Let's say "man" refers to any single man, woman, or child alive today, and define levitation as the ability to paranormally defy gravity at will.

Problem: You have to test over six billion people. By the time you're done with the first few, several people have died somewhere in the world. It is now impossible to prove that these people could not levitate when they were alive.

D'oh!

How about if we try it on everyone who is alive at the time they are scheduled to take the test? As the population grows, so does the backlog. So that won't work.

How about we test the falsehood of this statement: Every man, woman and child on Earth can levitate. All we have to do is pick a person at random and test the hypothesis.

One problem: How do you prove that any particular person cannot levitate? Some of the possibilities:

He says he can levitate, but refuses to do it.
He says he can't levitate, but is lying.
He has the innate ability to levitate, but doesn't know how.

In short, proving a negative can be an awful lot of trouble. Its a lot simpler just to limit our inquiries to things we have evidence for.

[Tez]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm
Testing falsehood of the statement "Man can levitate"...

Let's say "man" refers to any single man, woman, or child alive today, and define levitation as the ability to paranormally defy gravity at will.

Problem: You have to test over six billion people. By the time you're done with the first few, several people have died somewhere in the world. It is now impossible to prove that these people could not levitate when they were alive.

D'oh!

How about if we try it on everyone who is alive at the time they are scheduled to take the test? As the population grows, so does the backlog. So that won't work.

How about we test the falsehood of this statement: Every man, woman and child on Earth can levitate. All we have to do is pick a person at random and test the hypothesis.

One problem: How do you prove that any particular person cannot levitate? Some of the possibilities:

He says he can levitate, but refuses to do it.
He says he can't levitate, but is lying.
He has the innate ability to levitate, but doesn't know how.

In short, proving a negative can be an awful lot of trouble. Its a lot simpler just to limit our inquiries to things we have evidence for.

Hey Aggle

Welcome to the forum!

My feeling is that thinking about things along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" do not really help skeptics much. Almost every issue can be rephrased in such a way that "proving" it is proving a negative.

What we really mean when we confront these things is that "you cant prove statements over infinite domains". Thus, although I can't prove unicorns dont exist, I can prove that they dont exist under my desk right now.

Ultimately of course its better to avoid the term "prove" completely, unless the axioms are very well laid out and generally agreed upon, and rather stick to "show reasonable evidence for"...

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Tez



My feeling is that thinking about things along the lines of "you cant prove a negative" do not really help skeptics much. Almost every issue can be rephrased in such a way that "proving" it is proving a negative.



Yeah, I can see how this can degenerate into boolean algebra, and nobody wants that. :)

I guess the key is to ask the question: Which is the more extraordinary claim: That something does exist, contrary to everything we know, or that something doesn't exist, contrary to everything we know?

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Tez


Ultimately of course its better to avoid the term "prove" completely, unless the axioms are very well laid out and generally agreed upon, and rather stick to "show reasonable evidence for"...

I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.

Prove otherwise, so-called "Skeptics"! ;)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.

Prove otherwise, so-called "Skeptics"! ;)

Ow, I think I sprained a neuron on that one.

ps. Welcome to the forum!

[dsm]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm

I deny negative confirmation of the lack of evidence of the null hypothesis.


So you accept the positive confirmation of the real evidence of a well-stated hypothesis?

Isn't that what the skeptics have said all along...?

:D

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by dsm


So you accept the positive confirmation of the real evidence of a well-stated hypothesis?

Isn't that what the skeptics have said all along...?

:D

Let's put it this way: I don't fail not to accept it, unless circumstances that are not beyond my control do not intervene.

That being said, I will proceed to not dwell on the subject any further. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
:p

[aggle_rithm]

According to an episode of the Six Million Dollar Man, Bigfoot is a big, furry robot. That's why we can't find any droppings! Or a body.

Seriously, I recently saw a documentary where they claimed to have tracked down the man who wore the ape costume in the famous Patterson Bigfoot film. He refused to talk about Bigfoot, but as he sulked away, it was pretty obvious from his slow, lumbering gait that he was the guy in the film. This film has long served as the benchmark of Bigfoot evidence.

My point is: If the basis of a belief is on shaky ground, then everything built on that basis is suspect. All other considerations are irrelevent. You're better off letting that belief go in favor of more worthwhile pursuits.

[cbish]

mythmusage,

I might be your guy if you want to go Bigfoot hunting. My brother works for the leading Bigfoot hunting firm; Beam, Daniels, and Weiser. He's out in the field right now.

[Zep]

Re "levitation", let's look at the definition again: levitate: To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. OK, some of the previous posters took exception to my Mir space station example for various reasons, irrelevant or otherwise, but it did seem that they took it there was an IMPLIED extra limitation (ie. not clearly stated) that it only applies on Earth under normal gravity. *sigh*

So let's make the new definition as: levitate: While being on the Earth's surface and subject to normal Earth gravity, to rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. (That should at least rule out all other planets...!)

OK, have a look at this link to see some everyday people meeting this new, more restricted crtieria: www.genting.com.my/en/themepark/indoor/skyventure.htm

Zep

PS. That looks like Fun!
PPS. I highly recommend that folks take up Hydrogen Cyanide's call to action - to go to the Oregon/Washington/BC forests in a systematic scientific search for anything like a sasquatch. Who knows! YOU could be the one!!!

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Zep
So let's make the new definition as: levitate: While being on the Earth's surface and subject to normal Earth gravity, to rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity. By this definition you would not be levitating if you did it sitting on a floor. :confused: