What Does It Take To Be A Bigfoot Researcher?
What does it take to be a bigfoot researcher? Do you need certain credentials? A solid resume? Some big name co-signers? What exactly is a bigfoot researcher anyways?
Matt and Phil of Bigfoot Revolution ponder the question and give their viewpoints on what it means to be a bigfoot researcher, and is it really all it's cracked up to be?
Boots on the ground
ReplyDeleteWHAT THE !!!!!!!!!!
DeleteGermany to get away from the dollar and join the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.)
DeleteVice President Joe Biden declared that America's jobs picture is brighter than ever.
Delete^ I want what he's smokin
Deleteshrooms is what he's takin
DeleteUnless one shows up, we'll never know...
ReplyDelete^ douchbag
ReplyDelete^ Fasano
Delete^ I think you're right. I can hear the wheezing.
DeleteTrapper and the AIMS team carry all that firepower with them for their safety
ReplyDeleteAIMS dont need all that fire power while WILD BILL got that BIG KNIFE
DeleteBuck be doing Wild Bill in his cooterhole when no ones looking.
DeleteBUCK say WILD BILL gots his back!!!!
DeleteTrue dat.True dat.
DeleteTesting 1 2 3 ......cooter hole
DeleteKewl....
Deletewut it tayks is da abilitee ta tayst BLUD an NO wut CREETCHUR it caym frum lyke da ULTAMIT REESERCHER TRAPPER
DeleteWhat it takes is the ability to taste blood and know what creature it came from like the ULTIMATE RESEARCHER TRAPPER.
DeleteTranslated for your safety.
ans his apprentice WILD BILL checkin the blood that Trapper tasted
DeleteWHAT THE........
Deletewild bill got a killer knife! what is it so i can get 1.
DeleteWhat the!!!!!
DeleteWild Bill Big Knife must have cost Wild Bill a months pay $$$
Deletethat is if AIMS pays him for his time $$$
What the......
DeleteNothing, any moron can claim to be a cryptzoologist and make up their own bs theories based on zero evidence and no understanding of science. It's all a joke.
ReplyDelete^^ no reason to stick around then
DeleteTrapper and the AIMS team got photos of the Grassman, and trapped Hawgzilla
DeleteWell said 10:07!!
Delete^ lol. Dweeb
Delete^ lol. Jealous
DeleteHello Big Jon xx
DeleteHey Eva!! Your new Superfriends attire is fabulous!!
DeleteThanks xx
DeleteBigfoot researchers are made by what they DON'T have. Jobs, lives, self respect, etc.
ReplyDeletethays gotz guns traps and such
DeleteThat shit comes in handy when you're sitting on the couch making YouTube videos.
DeleteSome don't even have a couch and have to make their videos in their car.
Deleteans lookin for hawzilla
Deleteids usin da librul fer tham vids
Delete^^^We need a fundraiser to buy Fasano a futon or a beanbag chair. And maybe an oxygen tank...
DeleteWhat about a 4 wheel drive Hover Round with doughnuts for wheels and a tank with a large straw full of hot coco?
DeleteCan he get one in his cab? Without his lungs collapsing?
DeleteThat's what his minions are fer.
DeleteHell get me one that sounds awesome!!
DeleteA minion or a custom fat ass hauler?
Deleteside by side the best it da boosh
DeleteMinion or a custom fat ass hauler take your pick it just doesn't matter.
Deleteside by side the way to gos
Deleteminions be da best
DeleteMoney and lots and lots of beer.And maybe a hooter our three,depending if you're Squatching at 4:20.
ReplyDeleteAIMS mountainmen, moonshine, guns, huntin and trapin @ night its all good : )
DeleteThick skin to deal with all of the know it all Trolls and couch potato Bigfooters!
ReplyDeleteC'mon man
DeleteKEEP UP THE GOOD WORK KELLY SHAW!!!!!
DeleteYou're confusing thick skin with a thick head. You're part of a Rouges Gallery of Buffoons. If you want proof, go back a couple of threads and watch Fasano's little skit.
DeleteYes, good job, Kelly! Don't let the trolls get you down!
Delete10:51 - is the head buffoon
Delete10:51 is a doodoo head......
Delete10:51... Mentally scarred for life. Such a shame.
Delete^ You a fan of stupid videos, are ya? It would explain your fetish for bigfoot researchers. Stupid videos are their forte.
DeleteKeep doing your thing, Mr. Shaw!
Deleteyes because 25 2nd hand accounts a day is never enough
Delete?
Deleteagreed and kelly shaw .sure sounds like a nice lady so dont be mean to her
DeleteYou cant ever take seriously anyone who wont put their name behind their comments. Anonymous trolls are mere nats and could never be taken seriously. Thick skin is the only thing anyone needs in life to succeed. You listen to the whiners and no can doers that is when you become an anonymous internet troll. Someone with no name and their opinions fall on deaf ears.
DeleteYou can't take seriously anyone that puts out a video of a shadow and suggests it's a bigfoot.
DeleteI think you're chasing the wind and even fabricating your own "evidence."
DeleteHow's that for anonymous?
Oh Danny. Why must you be so bitter? What happened? I remember when you were a pleasant person, a refreshing addition to this blog even. Has life become that tough for you?
DeleteI'm not going to keep coming back to this thread. If you have a response, catch me on the latest one. Hope you're ok.
DeleteBig Joke are you homosex?
DeleteThe hairs for the Sykes study WERE examined previous to testing you even saw him examining them with a conventional microscope in the Ch 4 documentary. The reason why those hairs were chosen to be tested was because after examining them they showed differences to known samples when viewed under an electron microscope. Not all animal hair is the same over the entire body, same as the hair on my head isn't the same as the hair in my beard or the hair on my sack. Science guys it comes in useful learn some. If the Browns really do have something Squatchy going on then instead of inviting Footers invite some well known sceptics to prove them wrong or at least prove there might be something worth looking into.
ReplyDeleteWell known sceptics like musky allen?We all know how that turned out.
Delete"What is not known by most who watched or read about Dr.Sykes bigfoot DNA Project is that many of the hair samples sent to Dr. Sykes were already tested by animal hair experts and tested out as “unknowns”. these hair samples were collected years ago and had under gone expert scrutiny and were deemed “unknowns” meaning they couldn’t place them with any other animal on this earth at that time. These hairs in a few cases were part of a bunch of hairs collected from the same place so they had many more left after initial testing.
DeleteWhat I’m trying to say is that many of these hair samples were already known to not be bear, wolf, raccoon or any animal known on earth. Let repeat, most DNA labs before testing hair samples for DNA will have a hair and fiber expert look at the hair to see if it matches known species before spending the money which is considerable to do DNA testing. Many of the submitters had done this and knew that their hair samples they sent to Sykes were not known animal species. So you can imagine their considerable consternation to hear Sykes results that the hair tested out as bear, wolf etc…Wouldn’t Dr. Sykes use the same hair and fiber experts to pre-screen these samples before submitting them for costly DNA testing ? These questions need an answer and soon because I know for a fact there are a few puzzled sample submitters that know they did not submit samples that were known animals."
10:52... Do you count as a 'well known skeptic'?
(Pffffft)
Once again Joe read what I'd written before another of your dumb cut and pastes full of heresay and pseudoscience bs. No I wouldn't count myself or Musky as a well known sceptic but these would be good: Daniel Loxton ( co-author of Abominable Science), Blake Smith ( Monster Talk podcast) or Darren Naish ( co-author of Crytozoologicon vols 1&2 and the Tetrapodzoology Podcast). Darren Naish lives in Southampton so I think the plane tickets might be a tad expensive! Not only has Darren a huge interest in cryptozoology and English big cats but he let it slip that he was one of the peer reviewers of the epic fail that was the Ketchum study. Her science was garbage and she had nothing to back up her theory. Like most of the psuedoscientists out there they need to go back to college and learn real science.
DeleteDid I ever tell you that I shot a turd from my butt all in the name of Science. Indeed.Yes indeed.
DeleteD Campbell.
Weren't those samples VETTED by none other than father Jeffery Meldrum? He sent them to Sykes because they matched morphologically to what "researchers" say is Bigfoot hair looks like. Your claim that the identity of the samples were know is COMPLETE BS just like the rest of the crap you spout here every day.
Delete* known
Deletehurry joe or your going to be late for work at the kebab king
DeleteWRONG.^
DeleteWHAT THE !!!!!!
Deleteoh today your bussing tables at new yummies
DeleteJoe got fired from denny's
DeleteThe Scientologists kicked Joe out for being too crazy!
DeleteHa ha ha!!!
DeleteAll these accusations and directed anger, and if you'd actually taken the time to disect my comment, you'd know that I was in fact confirming your statement... With a twist.... AKA, the wider picture, old boy.
The sources of unknown primate hair I reference, one if which is confirmed by one of the leading primatologists in the world, so shut and sit down.
What's more, is I can show you the morphology of the hairs to which compared to that of others... Are totally different. Go and get your 'known skeptics' and see if they can take that apart, see if you can 'pseudoscience' that.
You know nothing more of science than the average idiot around here, I've shown you up a number of times. You pitiful litte twurp, ha ha ha ha ha!!!
You haven't shown me up at all just posted more YouTube links and cut and pastes of your pseudoscience buddies! What bigger picture would that be? Another bs organised science conspiracy perhaps? Which 'unknown primate' hair is this and which scientist supports it's legitimacy and which other scientists agree with him? I'm not a scientist but I seem to be able to grasp scientific concepts and the scientific method better than yourself. You seem very full of yourself Joe and I have no idea why :)
DeleteOh, and name dropping Meldrum and Ketchum... I've never claimed Meldrum has had unknown primate hair and have myself been critical of Ketchum (just draw attention to the wider information, like up top, something silly boys like you get easily threatened by), you really show you haven't got the slightest idea what the heck you're talking about.
DeleteYou're just a little upset I've knocked you around before, but hey, science boy... You know 'science' right?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
YouTube links and cut and pastes that for all your apparent science knowledge, you can't even get your little brain around that. Dr Walter Birkbe would be the respected primatologist and world specialist in primate hair, and hairs collected by John Myoczinski.
DeleteYou want a long line of scientists to confirm finds when you're looking at one of the most ridiculed subjects on the planet, you rhetorical twonk.
And no, you don't seem to understand the scientific method than the average troll around here, in fact, you deny constistent scientific method very regularly. When a wildlife biologist and former advisor to the UN states that tracks that have been found 50 miles into wilderness areas are authentic, then it is the denial of yourself and the mainstream scientific public in the way they acknowledge to the same source that has excelled them in every respect, delivering consistent scientific methods that suddenly are not good enough when applied to this subject.
For your information (to help you with your fool's guide) wildlife biologists conduct a significant amount of their studies on tracks.
And I dissagree further, I have in fact shown you the close up morphology of an unknown primate hair here;
Deletehttp://www.artistfirst.com/bigfootcentral.html
... Nothing more significant.
I never mentioned Meldrum at all that was another anon, you have been critical of Ketchum but you've also talked conspiracy and I do believe you posted a list of supporters with degrees. That was you wasn't it and didn't you also state that you thought she was on to something? So whose the primatologist? What's the chain of evidence for this hair?
DeleteI'm not threatened by anything I haven't even mentioned my personal views on Bigfoot just calling you on your 'evidence' or lack thereof. So why so full of yourself Joe? What makes you so special among the other arrogant kooks out there?
Nope, I stated facts about withdrawals of journals at he last minute and occurrences around venues scheduled to talk, what supporters with degrees have I posted?? Please find me the comment where I have done that. I've referenced scientists who have been on an honorary board of the PGF paper, I think you need to get your information straight prior to suggesting people don't understand science, your credentials to ascertain a science paper are all ready in question.
DeleteThe chain of evidence goes as far as sientists are prepared to go with it publicly, no scientist, with the exception of Sykes has ever had the stomach to come out and publicly support a finding attributed to this field because they have reputations to withhold. And before you question the source, Birkbe has had plenty of time to denounce those results with his name to, and he hasn't. Meldrum knows of a long line of anthropologists who cannot disclose their stance for the sake of their careers.
I think you'll find that the burden of proof lies with you Joe, you've made the extraordinary claim that this creature exists now it's up to you to provide the extraordinary evidence to back your claims like a body. Tracks are pretty but as Sasquatch hoaxes occur on a daily basis they ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH and there is no definitive way to prove their authenticity unless you have a type specimen. All Myoczinski can do is offer an opinion and no despite all your arguments bout Jimmy Chilcutt he can only offer his opinion and has no one to back up his findings. Tracks are accepted as evidence of KNOWN animals you moron.
DeleteUnless they plucked the hair from Patty's bikini line themselves no one can claim to own a Sasquatch hair. We've also seen alleged primate hair come back with different results when retested before, has this been independently re-tested? How can you claim to show the morphology of a Bigfoot hair when you have no Bigfoot to verify your claim? Ha, you say that I ignore the scientific method and you come back with this?! What was that about the field being ridiculed by science? If it is it's because of proponents like yourself who constantly embarrass themselves. To think that science doesn't have an interest in the subject is the fall back stance of the footers like Moneymaker et al. You think that scientist were raised in a bubble unable to experience the same pop culture as everyone else? It's a lame duck argument Joe and you're quackers
Well until those anthropologists come out the closet then Meldrum can make blanket statements like that. It means nothing. I remember many pro Ketchum comments you've made in the past about how she was on to something if I can be bothered I'll look and double check.
DeletePapers and studies have been published even a study by psychologists on Footers was conducted in 2009.
The burden is in fact with anyone side making a case for the exchange of verifying sources. Extraordinary claims should not require extraordinary evidence. We live in an age where string theory and quantum physics are getting to be way beyond the pails of anything paranormal, yet the psuedoskeptics suggest that a living breathing subject that leaves physical and biological clues after itself is nothing to consider in any realm of fact. Especially when this is determined by the same scientific methods that have excelled respected fields. Science doesn't prejudise or have a preconceived disposition to favour a preferenced conclusion... This is heuristics and actually what the scientific method was designed against. Nobody is suggesting this subject should be proven on the basis of the evidence alone, but if people are reporting, to which there is physical and biological evidence of an unknown primate, then what does that tell you? Science doesn't start at a body, it is a tool in investigating evidence leading up to that point. When you have species traits that are seperated by States and decades, verified by forensic and primate prints expert, that's significant. It's a kop out to require verification in a field nobody wants to touch or feels they can be honest about for that matter. In fact Anna Nekaris seems to think a lot can be determined from a new species by the tracks they leave.
DeleteActually, you're totally wrong. If you have a primatologist state that the hairs under his supervision are from an unknown primate, to which those fibres were attained from a sighting, then unless you're requiring a safety net kop out, or brainwashed, then that's self evident. It doesn't classify anything, but it's as good a piece of evidence in the study of what's going on as you'll find. Also... The maintained stance that tracks are not good evidence because there are examples of them being falsified, is flawed because any submittable source of evidence in the court of law or in agenda driven science an be falsified and has been... Also, laughably
Circumstantial evidence is usually good enough for any court of law.
That's why I can say you ignore scientific method, because you deny a logical outcome for a preconceived preference and hide behind the dogmatic attitude like science is some governing body... It is in fact a tool. Scientists have an interest, it is however restricted due to the social restrictions 'science' has put on the field.
You and your 'known skeptics'.
Funny how Joe has a habit of disappearing right as his ass is getting kicked through the uprights.
Delete2:17... Go on then bro, please find those comments. You'll find every single one with the beginning "though I don't support all of her work". I'll await a comparitive Sasquatch DNA study before judging her totally.
DeleteBlanket statements, quite correct. You're full of sh*t.
2:36... What a silly little tu*d you look like now.
DeleteHere we go Joe :
DeleteMarch 18th 2014
"Am I outspoken? Yes.
Do I care? No.
Am I aware of the crazy stuff going around about Ketchum post-study? Yes.
Do I think she's had a hard time regardless? Yes.
Do I find her work legit? I'm back to leaning towards; yes.
Peace."
"You can tell a lot about the truth these days by the manner in which forward thinking and regime challenging ideas are reacted against.
If there was absolutely nothing to her work, then why would Nature send her work to peer review? If there was absolutely nothing to her work, then why would the Journal of Advanced Zoological Exploration in Zoology accept the paper, passing it in peer review (only to back out of publication on the day the paper was to go live)? If there was nothing to her work, then why would GenBank refuse to allow the team to upload their sequences, sending emails requiring signed consent forms from the individuals the samples came from (i.e. Sasquatch), prior to acceptance of the sequences, among other excuses, why not refuse it outright? If there was nothing to her work, then why have there been death threats leveled at scientists in the study, not to mention a pipe bomb that was detonated at a venue where Dr. Ketchum was scheduled to speak at?
Why all these occurrences for nothing but a woo topic for the gullible?
Yeah, that's right... Wake up."
"Those sorts of numbers can't be 'impossible', and though I have a very basic understanding of this stuff, I'm inclined to go with a research group that managed to get all the right attention I stated up top (only to get it thwarted at the last moments).
Bigfoot are human.
Oh... And I didn't say I 'bleeved' Ketchum; I stated that I'm leaning towards believing.
Peace!"
I pretty much stand by that statement, though this is more accurate;
Delete"j************d verifiedTuesday, July 1, 2014 at 4:55:00 AM PDT
Though I don't support everything Melba has done, or even advocate that she has been totally honest (cause I don't really know), I do get the feeling that there was legitimate things to her study that have been forever tarnished by the naughty things she's done, and maintain that we won't fully know the authenticity of her results until we have something to compare it to... So I like to post this comment so people are aware of some very strange occurrences surrounding her work."
The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim, when Darwin introduced the idea of Natural Selection he was the one making the extraordinary claim. We now have plenty of evidence to support that through the fossil record and it has now become the accepted scientific theory. You have nothing of worth to prove your claims.
DeleteNo bones, no fossil records, video that's impossible to verify, tracks that it's impossible to rule out hoaxes, no verified DNA evidence and a whole bunch of big fish stories from 'eyewitnesses'. Nothing of value. The reason why science requires extraordinary evidence is because the existence of Bigfoot goes against current thinking in biology, anthropology, geology and archeology. You can talk bout String Theory or Quantum physics all you want but that's physics, moron. Tracks are good evidence of new animals like the new tapir or a new species of deer but no one has spent decades faking those, idiot.
Two of the sceptics I mentioned earlier (Daniel Loxton and Darren Naish) have both written books on cryptozoology and also published scientific papers and I should have put the Dr. prefix before their names. Yup they're published scientists and interested in Bigfoot. You're arguments against scientists are laughable and most likely completely unfounded. I'm just waiting for your Jim Viera trash to be cut and pasted again. There is no pseudo-scepticism just you and your pseudo-science. The "extraordinary claims" argument was put forward by Carl Sagan, he's quite famous.
Who does this sound like?
Delete1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: A person will make revolutionary pronouncements about the world or a Cryptid with only circumstantial evidence like blurry photos, foot casts, settlers diaries to back up their claim but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof like a body.
2. Burden of proof: The believer will argue a mountain of evidence (all circumstantial or of dubious origin) points to the existence of a creature and the burden of proof falls on the sceptic but in science the burden of proof falls on the one making the extraordinary claim that goes against all we currently know about biology etc and requires extraordinary evidence to back the claim like a body
3.Authority, Credentials and Expertise: The believer and psuedoscientist will cite the credentials of leading proponents of their claim adding credibility to their argument but those credentials must be relevant to their claim and must have advanced training in the relevant field. Pointing to an advanced degree is an attempt to intimidate sceptics by inferring that a degree means they know more about everything than you but in reality they are only qualified to pass comment on their relevant field.
4. Special Pleading and Ad Hoc Hypotheses: When the evidence is strongly against their hypothesis instead of admitting they are wrong they resort to special pleading to salvage their original hypothesis rather than admitting they are wrong, this is an ad hoc hypothesis and universally regarded as a failure. For example, Dr Sykes will prove Bigfoot exists- he doesn't - ah but the study is still on going and there will be another paper or there's a conspiracy!!
This was lifted from the brilliant Abominable Science by Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero buy it from Amazon it's well worth it :)
"AND... To the person who suggested further up this blog page that Matilda has been peer reviewed; wrong. Matilda's DNA had been peer reviewed, not the footage and if you think that I don't support Melba's work then you know nothing about what my stance is on the subject. Adrian Erickson was hoaxed with the footage by the land owners after it was determined that Adrian had found red Bigfoot hair, a hair that Melba successfully sequenced. If Adrian at the time thought the footage to be legitimate in giving Melba the hair, then why would Melba question Adrian?
DeleteNow, I understand this is hearsay and rumor, but let's look at this objectively a second; You have legitimately sequenced DNA on one hand, and a wookie mask on the other... Do we need to call in Sherlock Holmes?" Joe Aug 5th 2013
"Ketchum - messed up for sure but is slowly attaining attention to her findings" Feb 06 2014
"Finally, there have been death threats leveled at scientists in the study, not to mention a pipe bomb that was detonated at a venue where Dr. Ketchum was scheduled to speak, further highlighting the fact that the implications of the study are so profoundly challenging to conventional perspectives that people are willing to take such extreme measures to protect their deep-rooted and preconceived notions. But one has to wonder, what is so polarizing about the presumptive proof of the existence of an extant human hybrid that precipitates such fervor? Hopefully, time will unravel this mystery." Joe March 2014
Burden of proof used by psuedoskeptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument.
DeleteDarwin's theory of Natural selection as a mechanism, along with sexual selection was accepted by a large portion of the scientific community soon after publication. Why, because it is simple and elegant and it fits. The real wider acceptance came after the Neo-Darwin synthesis in the 1920's and 1930's by people like Ronald Fisher. These researchers provided the mathematical evidence that supported the theory and paved the way for the research into DNA as a mechanism for decent with modification. Things had to be tested... You see?
Are you aware of the fossil record for chimps and gorillas? For seven million years that they've been on the African continent, we have a handful of teeth.
"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws, laws of physics, or laws of nature, what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really, that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem."
- Dr.J.Richard Greenwell
There is not one reason, not in all the fields of science you list, for this subject to be bunk. Some of the most respected primotologists, skeptical I might add, state that there is nothing in the habitat of North America that points to a subject of the reported size not being able to survive. Check your sources, you sound a little daft. We do in fact have a ridiculous amounts of archeological and anthropological studies that document significant giant skeletal remains in North America... This is again; fact.
Nodody had spent time hoaxing tapir tracks, because tapirs don't warrant their own popular culture, or attract tourism in the same manner in which this subject does. The discovery of Bigfoot, would overshadow any animal you can think of; this being a ridiculously more significant attraction for all manners of agenda, such is the fascination that has always drawn in so many to ask the questions. Fact is... All sources of evidence are failsifiable, it is anti-scientific to not ask questions of sources accumilated 50 miles into wilderness areas from trustworthy and reliable professionals, because Bigfoot is pop culture.
The problem for psuedoskeptics is there are reliable sources of eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field.
DeleteFor every cryptoskeptic you can reference, I can reference another academic that's written a book in an enthusiastic respect. It's "my dad's tougher than your dad" I'm afraid.
"Therefore, in truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics (who call themselves "skeptics") are NOT open minded truth seekers who question things and are attuned to possibilities. Rather, they are ridiculers and prosecutors of anything that strays outside the status quo or challenges the official version of things. They are defenders of orthodoxy and materialism. And they will distort, dismiss, obfuscate and play "verbal hopscotch" to get their way. They've hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses the act of questioning, rather than to the questioner himself. In doing so, they've pretended to be the opposite of what they are to hide their true agenda, which is to protect the agenda of the status quo power elite and keep people remaining sheeple. See here for more info. Additionally, they've hijacked terms such as "rational, reason, logic, critical thinking" to mean the "proper" thinking and behavior that supports materialism and orthodoxy, and rejects against anything that challenges it. That is not what those words mean of course. It's a form of mind control and disinformation. And it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking a word to mean its opposite is more indicative of a deliberate agenda, such as a disinformation campaign or form of mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here to expose it thank goodness. Furthermore, oddly enough, they treat Science as if it were some kind of authoritarian "entity" that takes positions and views on issues (their own of course), when it is in fact merely a tool and method of inquiry based on logical principles. In reality, science does not take positions or hold dogmatic beliefs on subjects. People take positions, not Science, which holds no more views than my computer does. Science is not a living entity. These pseudoskeptics are projecting their own views and Atheistic philosophy into Science, which they hold as the ultimate authority, aka Scientism. (Oh well, I guess pseudoskeptics need something to worship too)."
There is such thing as psuedoskepticism, and you're one of it's minions using 'pseudoscience' as a mask for your shortcomings. I'll be back to answer any comments in the morning, I have a very well paid job to attend in the morning.
; )
I fully stand by Adrian Erikson's DNA sample being legitimate, it is in fact the only element to her work I find intersting.
Delete"j************d verifiedMonday, May 19, 2014 at 9:04:00 AM PDT
Firstly, Ketchum is a forensic scientist as well as a veterinarian. Secondly, I didn't state that I believed everything in Ketchum's study... What I do claim was a series of negative occurances that surrounded her work being presented to the public."
Extraordinary claims should not require extraordinary evidence. We live in an age where string theory and quantum physics are getting to be way beyond the pails of anything paranormal, yet the psuedoskeptics suggest that a living breathing subject that leaves physical and biological clues after itself is nothing to consider in any realm of fact. Especially when this is determined by the same scientific methods that have excelled respected fields. Laughably, circumstantial evidence is widely accepted in the court of law. Science doesn't prejudise or have a preconceived disposition to favour a preferenced conclusion... This is heuristics and actually what the scientific method was designed against. Nobody is suggesting this subject should be proven on the basis of the evidence alone, but if people are reporting, to which there is physical and biological evidence of an unknown primate, then what does that tell you? Science doesn't start at a body, it is a tool in investigating evidence leading up to that point.
DeleteBurden of proof used by psuedoskeptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument.
Authority, Credentials and Expertise; George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society... John Bindernagel, PhD, Courtenay, BC, Canada... Todd Disotell, PhD, New York University New York, NY... Colin Groves, PhD, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia... Chris Loether, PhD, Idaho Sate University, Pocatello, ID... Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland... Lyn Miles, PhD, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga... John Mionczynski, Wildlife Consultant, Atlantic City, WY... Anna Nekaris, PhD, Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, England... Ian Redmond, OBE, Conservation Consultant, Manchester, England... Esteban Sarmiento, PhD, Human Evolution Foundation, East, Brunswick, NJ... Zhou Guoxing, PhD, Beijing Museum of Natural History
Beijing, China... People like this are highly relevant to the fields as their credentials entail. It is in fact, the pseudoscientific (scratch that, idiot) who fails to recognize the relevance of such profoundly excelled minds backing a subject that requires every field aforementioned. What my degree is in is irrelevant and obviously got you all upset.
Special Pleading and Ad Hoc Hypotheses; "Sykes will prove Bigfoot exists- he doesn't - ah but the study is still on going and there will be another paper or there's a conspiracy!!" In fact, nobody is stating that there is a conspiracy, but stating that geneticists are only as good as their samples, and when the actual geneticist States that his work does not debunk Bigfoot and that there is a way from researchers to still test samples under him, then the fact that someone should insist we admit we're wrong, is rather embarrassing and shows a lack of integrity, honesty and outright denial of perverse proportions. We should ignore Sykes' rallying cry? This is in fact; special pleading. Special pleading is maintaining that scientific methods should be altered, bent and twisted to suit preconceived preferences and heuristical conclusions. What do I plead for? An even playing ground, t'is all.
Nighty night numpties!
DeleteHa ha ha ha ha!!!!
Praise the Holy Butt Diaper...........PRAISE IT!!!!
DeleteHoly smokes, Clueless J-O-E got SMOKED.........Annihilated even.
DeleteExtraordinary claims DO require extraordinary evidence, there is no two ways about it. Actually, though many did except the Darwin/Wallace idea of Evolution in the years after publication AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION IT WAS THE EXTRAORDINARY OR REVOLUTIONARY CLAIM THUS HAD TO PROVIDE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE AGANST THE ACCEPTED BIBLICAL VIEW OF CREATION. That's the point numb nuts. Can you provide evidence as compelling? No you can't.
DeleteEyewitness testimony is not worth anything regardless of who it's from, can you test it under laboratory conditions? Can you extract DNA from it? Can you use it as a type specimen? No you get nothing except a nice campfire tale. It doesn't matter who tells the yarn whether they're a cop, criminal, illiterate homeless man or Dr Apeman BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL HUMANS AND WE ALL LIE, MISTAKE THINGS AND SEE STUFF THAT ISNT THERE, ALL OF US ARE THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT OUR PROFESSION OR EDUCATION! Think about the Dyer hoax in 2008, he worked in corrections and his accomplice was a COP and they committed FRAUD!
I've already discussed the new studies on eyewitness testimony that have been conducted in the last few years but you seem to like to ignore that data. They were to look into the validation of eyewitness testimony because of the large number of CRIMINAL CASES OVERTURNED DUE TO BAD EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY AND PEOPLE BEING CLEARED BY DNA EVIDENCE. IT SHOWS EXACTLY HOW BAD EYEWITNESSES HUMANS ARE ESPECIALLY IN STRESSFUL SITUATIONS AND ESPECIALLY IN DESCRIBING INDIVIDUALS OF A DIFFERENT RACE TO THE EYEWITNESS. IT ALSO SHOWED HOW EASY THAT THOSE EYEWITNESSES MEMORIES WERE TO MANIPULATE AND HOW THEY OFTEN CREATED FALSE MEMORIES OF NON-EXISTENT EVENTS!!!!
"I know that many people believe that memory works like a video tape recorder and you tape it and play it back. That simply isn't true." Elizabeth Loftus is a psychologist who has specialized in the study of false memories and eyewitness testimony. Her research has revolutionized our understanding of how memories work, and how uncertain eyewitness testimony can be. Her books include: The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse, and Eyewitness Testimony.
Delete"..our brain is not like a video recorder, in fact we are taking shortcuts all of the time." Richard Wiseman is a psychologist who has specialized in studying paranormal psychology and, most recently, the science behind self-help technologies. His latest book is The As If Principle and MonsterTalk listeners may also enjoy his book Paranormality: Why we see what isn’t there.
"Those sorts of studies, which have only really been happening in sort of the last 5/ 10 years or so, are really starting to show us how much of our world is really constructed by our brains rather than us actively looking at the world going on around us." Wiseman
"...eyewitness testimony, as a matter of fact, is the number one cause of false convictions...eyewitnesses are testifying, people are believing them because they're sincere and believing in what they're saying but even when they're completely inaccurate...it's because eyewitness testimony is so persuasive especially when it's delivered with a lot of confidence and a lot of detail and even emotion." Loftus
"Whenever we are in a situation when something anomolus, something weird, something we're not used to observing happens you have to remember all sorts of factors come in to play. One is normally stress. Two is surprise. Three is you don't know how to frame what you have just seen and all these effect your observation.. certainly under circumstances we're not used to observing there's no reason to believe we'd be terribly accurate." Wiseman
^^^^^^^^Long winded sonsabitchs.
DeleteCryptozoology depends on eyewitness reports that we know are completely unvarifiable and can not be tested in anyway so how can they be considered evidence? They can't they're just stories!!!! They're cool to tell round the campfire but that's all! In a world where Bigfoot is a celebrity, all over the internet, tv and radio of corse people see him everywhere! Of course there are common links between the sightings because everybody has seen the PGF, some tv documentary or a website like this! Everyone who goes into the woods in the US today is bound to think of Bigfoot because he's everywhere! Perception, beliefs and biases influence our observation and memory greatly! They also help to create false memories to back up that bias which seem totally real to us. If you remember seeing something weird in the woods and then listen to a Bigfoot podcast with a witness in a similar situation your brain can create false memories or alter what you think you saw to match that other person's story. Suddenly whatever you saw becomes Bigfoot, whether it was or not.
Delete"There is nothing in cryptology that violates any established laws, laws of physics, or laws of nature, what it violates are some peoples sensibilities, so its really, that's more of a social problem rather than a scientific problem."
Delete- Dr.J.Richard Greenwell
Oh dear, well first thing is Greenwell is not a Dr. but people involved in the field like Bindernaegle used that title for him to add weight to anything he said. He does have a degree, it's a honorary degree from the University of Guadlarajara in Mexico, that's right Kermit the frog has an honorary degree from Southampton why not quote him Joe? Greenwell had NO FORMAL TRAINING IN FIELDS RELEVANT TO CRYPTOZOOLOGY! He also created the bs argument that if coelacanths can exist (when thought to be extinct) why not plesiosaurs?
I would imagine that all those scientists you mentioned are just calling for science to look into the phenomena. The sceptics I listed believe the same thing, they aren't denialists but they've looked into the so called 'evidence' and found it stands on rocky ground.
DeleteYou know that Lloyds of London consulted with Dr Todd and after this consultation came to the conclusion that the odds for Bigfoot weren't quite zero but less than one percent! That's why they offered the $10,000,000 bounty! Even Schaller is quoted as saying "In a 2003 Denver Post article Schaller said that he is troubled that no Bigfoot remains have ever been uncovered, and no feces samples have been found to allow DNA testing." Wonder what he thinks over ten years later with two failed high profile DNA studies?
Where's the big anti-science quote from Joe? Is it someone who believes in giants or another crank who'd been bitch slapped by a professional? Science is the opposite of religion, religion depends on belief and faith and is unchanging. Science changes constantly as new things are being discovered daily and old hypotheses debunked as long as the evidence is there to support it.
DeleteSpecial pleading is your forte Joe along with believer trolling, not surprised that that guy thought you were a friend of Shaun trolling for him to get more web hits.
So come on Joe what's your religion, Scientology or something culty and New Age?
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: A person will make revolutionary pronouncements about the world or a Cryptid with only circumstantial evidence like blurry photos, foot casts, settlers diaries to back up their claim but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof like a body.
Delete2. Burden of proof: The believer will argue a mountain of evidence (all circumstantial or of dubious origin) points to the existence of a creature and the burden of proof falls on the sceptic but in science the burden of proof falls on the one making the extraordinary claim that goes against all we currently know about biology etc and requires extraordinary evidence to back the claim like a body
3.Authority, Credentials and Expertise: The believer and psuedoscientist will cite the credentials of leading proponents of their claim adding credibility to their argument but those credentials must be relevant to their claim and must have advanced training in the relevant field. Pointing to an advanced degree is an attempt to intimidate sceptics by inferring that a degree means they know more about everything than you but in reality they are only qualified to pass comment on their relevant field.
4. Special Pleading and Ad Hoc Hypotheses: When the evidence is strongly against their hypothesis instead of admitting they are wrong they resort to special pleading to salvage their original hypothesis rather than admitting they are wrong, this is an ad hoc hypothesis and universally regarded as a failure. For example, Dr Sykes will prove Bigfoot exists- he doesn't - ah but the study is still on going and there will be another paper or there's a conspiracy!!
This was lifted from the brilliant Abominable Science by Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero buy it from Amazon it's well worth it :)
On Origin of Species was published in 1859. It was not until the 1920’s-30’s. The real wider acceptance came after the Neo-Darwin synthesis in the 1920's and 1930's by people like Ronald Fisher. These researchers provided the mathematical evidence that supported the theory and paved the way for the research into DNA as a mechanism for decent with modification. Things had to be tested... That’s 60 years gone by until his research was accepted on a wider sense. These are all facts, how long has this field been studies in depth? That’s right… It also took 60 years to find the giant panda, to which the search was given up after the first 30. It took a similar length of time to successfully track mountain gorillas, after the intial documentation.
Delete“AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION IT WAS THE EXTRAORDINARY OR REVOLUTIONARY CLAIM THUS HAD TO PROVIDE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE AGANST THE ACCEPTED BIBLICAL VIEW OF CREATION.”
… so you're agreeing with me? And what regimes are threatened by the confirmation of a species so close to us? Given the time frame that had to pass considering the revolutionary concept, then I think it is fair to say that after 47 years in which much of it has mistakenly been looking for a bipedal gorilla, now we have world beating geneticists latching on to what this subject actually entails and a wider emphasis on locating DNA, that the 13 in comparison we have left to play with could speed up your blood pressure rather severely me thinks. So yes… Given time and the emphasis on more scientific analysis, we will be able to provide you with that extraordinary evidence that your version of prejudiced, dated, contradictory science. It would no doubt slam your religious version of science apart, as well as religion.
“Nevertheless, eyewitness testimony remains a vital part of the criminal justice system, and with good reason. It’s the most abundant form of evidence, and it would be nearly impossible to convict guilty people without it. The problem is that it has for far too long been used irresponsibly, without instituting proper controls to ensure that eyewitnesses aren’t prodded into false recollections and that jurors aren’t permitted to give eyewitnesses more weight than good science allows.”
Do you think any court of law, or any reasonable person for that matter, would doubt hundreds of professional accounts, much of which multiple person, for reasons that one police officer you referenced was out to make some considerable sums of money? I think that’s jumping the gun a little there, old boy; a leap of faith if you will. Shall I call into question the name of science because we have examples of peer reviews falsifying the processes? Also, you mentioned that DNA is a major catalyst in promoting eyewitness testimony, well how about tracks and unknown primate hair to an instance of multiple eyewitnesses? Physical evidence to support a case, I wonder how many court cases have been concluded on such basis? Match that with a now growing emphasis on the accumilation of properly attained DNA samples you'll have a harder angle to wangle in time, I can assure you that. Also, your stance of eyewitness testimony would work if we are concerned with one incident in which a high degree of circumstance and subjective information must be analysed to come to an objective conclusion. When you have ten thousand years of cultural references that transition other cultures, in turn into contemporary accounts & mediums that are supported with physical and biological evidence… Then your comparison seems slightly miniscule. By sheer probability, you have a basis to not be so cynical of the data, that’s unless you have an agenda not to that is, which is opposed to any judiciary system or scientific platform for impartial study. It is a fabrication to allege that the evidence for relict hominids rests solely on eyewitness testimony, it is untrue and naive to the facts.
“On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts.
DeleteKassin, Saul M.; Tubb, V. Anne; Hosch, Harmon M.; Memon, Amina
American Psychologist, Vol 56(5), May 2001;
In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations, hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the cross-race bias, weapon focus, the accuracy–confidence correlation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference. Results also indicate that these experts set high standards before agreeing to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to shape expert testimony so that it more accurately represents opinions in the scientific community.”
So you see… Your theories regarding eyewitness testimony are drawn from court room scenarios and processes in that various influences in that very environment can be major factors in affecting the legitimacy of the source of evidence. When applied to the sheer frequency of data reflecting the professional basis of this field, again… a bad comparison, especially when the judicial system you quote has so many examples of eyewitness testimony being authenticated with physical/circumstantial evidence, to which there are too many for me to reference.
Vampires, zombies, Teletubbies… All these things are popular culture, why do people like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners not see these? The fact that these professional and upstanding & highly experienced professionals are reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances, very clear and unmistakable full frontal accounts that depict behavior and ridiculously finer details, means you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. People are not seeing the Vampires, zombies, Teletubbies, whilst Bigfoot reports span the last ten thousand years prior to it becoming popular culture. Did the scientists who excelled the theories of life on other planets have any influence on the reports of UFO phenomena prior to the X-Files becoming a smash hit in the 90’s? It’s a stupid argument ignorant of the sheer frequency of data there is. If Bigfoot is now popular culture, it can be said that more people are conforming to realistic thought processes to which they have a subject to invest reasonable confidence in.
Do you think referencing sceptical cryptozoologists against enthusiastic cryptozooloigtsts lends to any level of enhanced credibility for one side of the argument? For every Doctor you can reference, I have some of the best conservationists, wildlife consultants, wildlife biologists, geneticists, primotologists (the best in fact) and anthropologists in the world supporting the notion that relict hominids/unknown primates can easily exists in the wilderness areas of the world with an abundance of resources to survive.
J. Richard Greenwell was cofounder of the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC). Greenwell, at the suggestion of Jerome Clark, along with Dr. George Zug at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D. C. and Dr. Roy Mackal at the University of Chicago, embarked on the creation of the first formal scientific organization for the study of hidden or as yet-undiscovered animals, the International Society of Cryptozoology. Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001) was elected as the first President of the ISC, a post he held for life. Such profound backing for someone so allegedly unqualified, eh? Richard Greenwell served as Secretary of the International Society of Cryptozoology from its founding. He was funded in his position to edit the Journal and Newsletter of the ISC, and employed funds from the society to travel to many parts of the world to investigate cryptozoological claims and specimens; one being the Yeren (Wild Men) in China with Frank Poirier (Ohio State University anthropologist). Originally from Surrey, England, Mr. Greenwell spent six years in South America, after which he was appointed Research Coordinator of the Office of Arid Lands Studies at the University of Arizona, in Tucson. Before the existance of the ISC, Greenwell searched for the Mokele-Mbembe in the Congo with Roy P. Mackal (University of Chicago biologist) in 1980 and 1981. Greenwell would, before the end of his life, take zoological and cryptozoological trips to over thirty countries, including the U.S.A., China, the Congo, Papua New Guinea, several South American countries. A member of numerous scientific societies, including the American Society of Mammalogists, Greenwell was a Fellow of both the Explorers Club (New York) and the Royal Geographical Society (London). He was the author of more than 100 scholarly and popular articles, and, for a few years beginning in 1993, he was a columnist for BBC Wildlife Magazine, Britain’s leading animal conservation publication. A paid consultant on various television programs, Greenwell had also lectured on cryptozoology at many colleges and universities, scientific institutions, museums, zoos, and aquariums. His sponsored fieldwork included various explorations in pursuit of Sasquatch, beginning with his first in northern California in August, 1997, when he directed a four-person scientific expedition attempting to obtain evidence of the Sasquatch. They continued as recently as August 2005, again in northern California, while he was in the final stages of cancer. Not so black and white is it… You have a knack of using your poisonous, cynical approach to moulding a version of reality that of which leans to your preference. I would love for you to try and compare those achievements to your list of cryptoskeptics. It might be news to you also, but one has to pursue cryptozoology on their own. Their are no college courses in cryptozoology, therefore the credentials of your list are just as qualified as the next. Cryptozoology though is a genuine field of research, and a few scientific papers have been published in journals none more prevelant than the accomplishments of said individual. Many animals that are known to have existed or that have eventually been discovered (thylacine, coelacanth, mountain gorilla, etc.) that all have fallen under this bracket over time, required many, many decades to materialise into type specimen and meant people getting into the field and finding trace evidence to which there are mounds of it in this field. I’m assuming that you were a little burned the day the coelacanth cropped up and blew your little bubble around form you? Eh??
DeleteNope! The scientists that I have referenced are in fact on an honorary board in line with research compiled by Dr Jeff Meldrum, for one. What you 'think' is irrelevant and has no more credentials behind than the average troll around here. For all your bounty celebrating, funny that Disotell should be on this honorary board, eh? For every cynic you can find, I can find another just as qualified that endorses the habitat and conditions suitable for an unknown primate, one of which is of a skeptical mindset to which again… Is on the honorary board (Dr Sarmiento), so again… It’s a case of “my dad’s tougher than yours.”
DeleteIt is part of one singular academic ignorance that skeletal remains have not been found, when we have 150 years worth of science journals, anthropological & archaeological studies that have documented giant remains exactly where thousands of years worth of native culture have maintained they have shared areas with giant tribes (Sasquatch), and as for feces and DNA;
"I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise (for lack of medulla). Feces do so even less, since the DNA collecting has to be done while they are practically steaming fresh, and it is improbable in the extreme that anybody with fecal DNA expertize would stumble onto fresh sasquatch droppings."
- Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach, Beaverton, Oregon & Dr. P. Fuerst Department of Molecular Genetics, Ohio State University
And as for having 'faith' and 'believe';
"A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."
"A belief that is founded upon a compelling theory and that is consistently supported by plenty of empirical evidence is not properly described as "faith." As I understand the meaning of the word "faith" — especially when this word is used in an attempt to discredit a proposition — it means belief in something for no rational reason and without sufficient supporting empirical evidence."
-Don Boudreaux
"There is a prominent view in epistemology (the study of knowledge) that “belief” and “evidence” go hand-in-hand. They say that evidence provides the support for belief, and that without evidence, there is no good reason to have a belief. In philosophy, this perspective is called “evidentialism” – the view that a belief is only rational if it is well-supported by evidence."
Keep this up, and you'll be up to stretch in no time. But please... Don't stop, schooling you is fun.
; )
I would also like to add, nobody is doubting the scientific research behind eyewitness testimony being faulty, but this is however amplified by judiciary processes and environments that have been misused to denounce accumulative anecdotal data for thousands of years that have physical abs biological evidence, not to mention scientific studies that have documented skeletal remains.
DeleteOh... And we can do this aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall week, I can promise you that (I'm in my element) and no recycling from the same comments you've posted on the same thread is gonna help you.
; )
Oh... And extraordinary claims do not remain extraordinary when you have plenty of academics supporting such a concept.
DeleteThe 'extraordinary' is what labels the level of denial in those ignoring that fact.
I bet your heart's racing... I can feel your stomach sink from Wales when you come across all this.
You haven't made my heart skip a beat Joe you just keep recycling the same bunk over and over and as for the my dad is bigger than yours argument my dads are respected in their fields with real degrees earned not given by Mexican Universities! I was well aware of Greenwell's cv but he is not a Dr. He has not earned a real qualification in biology or zoology that would be fields that are relavent to study of unknown animals. You know why every one knows Binderneagle, Meldrum, Disotell et al is because they're the only ones that are vocal on the subject, what about their silent peers? You'd say either they don't want to stick their necks out and risk their jobs or they're part of the suppression of evidence by the evil science community! I'd say they aren't interested as there is no compelling empirical evidence to study, I'm glad you mentioned the 'father of cryptozoology' Heuvelmans the aardvark tooth guy, you know that the only paper with his name on it was a study on aardvark dentitions. You also must know that he had no formal training in field biology or ecology and didn't he buy into the famous Minnesota Iceman hoax ?
DeleteWhat about Professor Roy Mackal ph.D who started the ISC with Greenwell? He had a doctorate in biology, yes microbiology he has no field training in biology or ecology either and is considered to not be qualified to undertake competent research on exotic animals.
There's more coming it's just I don't have my arguments constantly ready to cut and paste...
Don Boudreaux ? Isn't he an ecconomist? Why would he be quote worthy in a discussion of a biological nature? Is it because of the comments he makes bout empirical evidence? Joe you have no empirical evidence! What you are indulging in frequently on here is referred to as 'credential mongering' by Loxton and Prothero. "...by which an individual or organisation flaunts a person's graduate degree as proof of expertise, even though his or her training is not specifically relevant to the field under consideration. This strategy is employed dishonestly by creationists, who flaunt their degrees in hydraulics or biochemistry as proof they are legitimate scientists, but then make arguments about palaeontology or evolutionary biology- fields in which they've had no training- and quickly show that they are incompetent. Mackal's knowledge of micro organisms does not necessarily translate into expertise in stalking large animals, any more than it translates into expertise about repairing cars or taming lions or playing the harpsichord."
DeleteIf we substitute "creationalist" with psuedo-scientist isn't it what you do quite often? Bring up a so called expert in Bigfoot or giant skeletons who supports your argument yet has no formal training whatsoever in the field being discussed. Jim Vierra is a stonemason what's his academic qualification to discuss archeology or mummification or American history? Greenwall has zero formal training in biology, zoology or any scientific field what makes him qualified to argue for the existence of Bigfoot? What has an economist got to do with Bigfoot?
Tbc
Such scientific heathens, eh? Such scientific abominations and excuses for human beings, eh? Funny that their theories have later transitioned into the minds of scientists like this;
DeleteDr. Jane Goodall, DBE UN Messenger of Peace & Founder - The Jane Goodall Institute
George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.
John Bindernagel, PhD, former advisor to the UN, Courtenay, BC, Canada
Todd Disotell, PhD
New York University New York, NY
Colin Groves, PhD
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
Chris Loether, PhD
Idaho Sate University, Pocatello, ID
Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland
Lyn Miles, PhD
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
Dr John Mionczynski
Wildlife Consultant, Atlantic City, WY
Anna Nekaris, PhD
Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, England
Ian Redmond, OBE
Conservation Consultant, Manchester, England
Esteban Sarmiento, PhD
Human Evolution Foundation, East Brunswick, NJ
Zhou Guoxing, PhD
Beijing Museum of Natural History
Beijing, China
Dr. W. H. Fahrenbach, formerly of the Oregan Primate Research Centre, Beaverton, Oregon
Dr. P. Fuerst Department of Molecular Genetics, Ohio State University
Kathy Moskowitz Strain B.A. Anthropology and M.A. in Behavioral Science (emphasis Anthropology; 1994) from California State University, Bakersfield. Currently the Forest Heritage Resource and Tribal Relations Programs Manager for the Stanislaus National Forest, a professional archaeologist/anthropologist of 20 years
Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department, non-human primate prints specialist and highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration
... Oh, I could go on... And on... And on... Kind of makes these scientific heathens look like pioneers, eh? Ha ha ha ha ha!!! Let me guess... They're aaaaaaaall 'pseudoscientists', right? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
I wonder how many primates have been discovered out of all that lot???
DeleteOuch!!
Oh... And I by no means suggest that the your heathens have influenced the list I provided, just that it's funny that their sentiment should be echoed by such esteemed company.
DeleteThose scientists you mentioned are not on some 'honorary board' that Meldrum's created. They are merely editors for submissions to his Relict Hominid Inquiry with Schaller is an honorary member! Learn to read you idiot. They're views on the subject are no listed and I would imagine their job is look at submissions and judge the validity of the data in their fields of study. Jeff Meldrum's super friends are just there to peer review like I said it was Disotel who got Lloyds to pony up that Bigfoot Bounty by suggesting the odds of it existing were around 1% :) Good odds there Joe I'm sure you'll alter and manipulate that somehow into a plus for you.
DeleteI love the way you rage there's an evil science wanting to suppress knowledge on the one hand and that on the other there's so much support for Bigfoots existence amoung academia! Which one is it Joe? Well neither are true so you loose twice over :)
As for skeleton remains of giants you really show your lack of knowledge or reason or logic.
Tbc
"Let's talk about giants shall we?... A few years ago I was in some chat group and people are usually getting really p***ed at me because I'm saying the Shroud of Turin is a medieval artefact. Get over it. Ancient Astronauts there's nothing to it. Get over it. Atlantis? It's made up by Plato. Get over it. I understand that for a lot of people these are effectively religious beliefs, I'm not saying 'Oh my God,my science is better than your science!' I'm saying 'You have no science at all!' And they don't care! Because their belief is based on faith which includes Atlantis, Ancient Astronauts and a whole bunch of stuff. Well, I used to think 'I can talk about the Cardiff Giant and the belief in Giants as everyone knows that it's bulls**t! Nobody really believes that s**t!' And I was shocked to find out there are actually people out there who believe as fervently in the belief in giants, ancient giants as do the Shroud of Turin, Atlantis, Ancient Astronauts or Psychic Archeology and this other stuff."
Delete"The funny thing was I got into a conversation, with a guy who essentially told me you're full of cr*p, didn't know what I'm talking about and there's definite proof. In fact, that archeologists today are attempting to hide it... He figured that I knew the 'truth' and was obliged by my profession to hide it because you guys couldn't handle it could you? The end of civilisation if I told you, ' You know what dude in the past there were 10 foot tall people!' Civilisation would collapse, the stock market would crash and we'd all be running round naked outside waiting for the End of Times because of this I guess?.... This guy actually sent me some citations, 'WHAT ABOUT THIS!' in the Smithsonian Bulletin and so on and so forth... "
DeleteThere are some citations, mostly from the 19th century mostly from the American Midwest from these 'Mounds', these burial mounds that we now know the Indians were building a couple of thousand years ago... There were several of these 'Mounds' in which reports say some very, very large human beings were buried in these mounds... Now in ONE case he had a specific citation to one case that I knew the remains were in the Smithsonian and I have contacts in the Smithsonian... I contacted one of the forensic scientists there and said, 'Look what's the deal with this? This guy says that when this body was excavated back in the 19th century it was ginormous like ten feet tall! I know that's probably not the case but what do you know about it?' What these guys told me, they deal with this all the time. The first thing is that when human bodies are put in the ground and the soft tissues decay that the bones actually migrate and that I'm 5ft 6"...you put me in the ground by the time all those tissues connecting all of my long bones decay away all that stuff... There's stretchage..."
DeleteBy the time I'm done if you measure from the tip of my head to the bottom of my it's probably gonna be a foot longer, I've already gained a foot by dying! Which sounds pretty damn impressive right? Well the other thing is you just get this incredible exaggeration of what people are finding and it's not excavated professionally or recorded professionally, they're not photographed BUT individual bones were measured. That's all you need as forensic scientists do this all the time....let's look at the long bones, the femur they have a series of formulas a 'regression formula'. You put that length in the formula and out spits the overall height of that person. The femur is the best bone for doing that... To get back to my story the guy that was saying this skeleton was actual proof positive of the existence of giants, I tracked it down. The metrics for that skeleton-the exact one he was talking about- when you plug the femur into the formula the person who left behind that skeleton was not 8ft tall, or 12ft tall, or 7ft tall, he wasn't even 6ft tall! He was like 5'10" or 5'11"!....this guy's response was I'm lying just to hide the facts...there's no reason to hide that I'd become rich and famous with something like that!"
DeleteUh, uh, uuuuuuuuuuhhhh... More babbling, you got served. I find it remarkable you should put a 'spin' on how those sources percieve this field and then suggest anyone alters or manipulates anything... Pretty funny.
DeleteI love how you denounce scientists for lack of evidence and then look like a twonk when I reference you am abundance. Pretty hilarious... I'm stating something very obvious about mainstream scientific agendas, just look at your sceptic view based on it's dogma... The scientists up top, not so much.
Bro... You've been taken apart on every angle and you're resorting to twists on alleged agendas. Disotell's name to that bunch self evident. Oh, and as for Jim Vieira, is someone's researching burial mounds and comes across archeological studies in libraries... Good for him. When it's confirmed by many Independant researchers, then that's a big F-U bro.
"M.J. EwersThursday, July 17, 2014 at 12:49:00 PM PDT
Great video D.L. Soucy,
I am a co-researcher of Jim Vieira, Ross Hamilton, Chris Lesely and about dozen other authors and lecturers. We've compiled somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 accounts of giant burials in America, Europe, and Asia of skeletons 6-1/2 to about 9 ft, and sometimes as tall as 12 ft- reported between 1700's and present day. I am familiar with the reports you drew attention to in your videos."
Siolen.
: )
These above quotes were transcribed from an episode of Monster Talk with Dr Kenny Feder author of the textbook "Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Psuedoscience in Archeology" which is now in it's 7th edition and used in universities worldwide. That was simple forensic science that is used to help identify human remains by height, measure the femur apply the formula get the height.
DeleteJoe you're a buffoon and a joke and like Kenny said above "it's not my science verses your science it's you don't have any science!"
Further to this, we've got native culture that predates the finds that says giant tribes were buried exactly where they were found.
DeleteQuick... Get typing for an excuse for that. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
You've not proved anything and if you actually read all that you'd realise Viera is a moron and so are you:) you have no empirical evidence if you did there would be no room for argument! Troll
DeleteUh uh uhhhhhh... You'll have to find another quote to denounce thousands of years of native culture that references sharing burial mounds with giants.
DeleteTo which giant remains are then found?
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
And furthermore... You have a suficient number of these finds with archaic, Neanderthal-esque features.
Delete"B-b-but the femurs??!!"
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!
What's the mater bro... You sound like you're getting a little miffed???
Delete; )
"Yes, Virginia, there is a Neanderthal fossil record in America. And apparently a Neanderthal hybrid fossil record. No genetics publication has put all the evidence together: the genetics establishment is still in denial about most things Neanderthal. The evidence is scattered and mostly unrecognized, but, in our opinion, conclusive and compulsive. Consider the following article: Frank L'Engle Williams and Gail E. Krovitz, "Ontogenetic Migration of the Mental Foramen in Neanderthals and Modern Humans," Journal of Human Evolution 47/4 (Oct. 2004) 190-219. The mental foramen (literally "mind's little hole") is an anatomical trait very pronounced in Neanderthals, a small dimple in the lower jaw of the skull beneath the teeth, or mandible. It is found sporadically in humans, where it is classified as archaic. Among the places where it has been identified are the Oleniy Islands and Baltic region, Northwestern Russia in Cro-Magnon like Europoid and Mongoloid types, along with "large and massive" torus occipitalis or Anatolian bumps (Alexander Mongait, 1959; Marija Gimbutas, 1956); Bakhehisarai in the Crimea (Alexander Mongait, 1959); the Joman or Ainu of Japan (Carleton Stevens Coon, 1962); and the "race of giants" continually being unearthed in West Coast, Ohio Valley and New England archeological sites, caves and mounds. Archaic giant skeletons with mental foramina, occipital bumps, double rows of teeth and other Neanderthal features are reported, in fact, all over the Americas.
DeleteEvening News (Ada, Oklahoma), November 8, 1912. PRIMITIVE MEN OF GIGANTIC STATURE. Eleven skeletons of primitive men, with foreheads sloping directly back from the eyes and two rows of teeth in the front of the upper jaw, have been uncovered at Craigshill at Ellensburg, Washington. They were found about twenty feet below the surface, twenty feet back from the face of the slope, in a cement rock formation over which was a layer of shale. The rock was perfectly dry. The jawbones, which easily break, are so large that they will go around the face of a man today. The other bones are also much larger than those of the ordinary man. The femur is twenty inches long, indicating a man of eighty inches tall [6' 8"]. The teeth in front are worn almost down to the jawbones, due, it is believed, to eating uncooked foods and crushing substances with the teeth. The sloping skull shows an extreme low order of intelligence."
... "B-b-b-but the femurs!! Oh those damned femurs!!"
He he he he...
"M.J. EwersThursday, July 17, 2014 at 12:50:00 PM PDT
DeleteSome of the early mound reports do describe Gorilla like skulls, and simian features not unlike those of a Neanderthal man. This could be a combination of upper-paleolithic or archaic traits among some of the ancient American Indians. Skulls such as the strange skulls (2 of them) unearthed in 1967 outside of Lovelock cave in the humboldt sink and dated to below 2,000 years old do exhibit pronounced brow ridge, occipital buns, and very robust mandibular development - the occipital bun being relatively rare among modern humans, whereas it is found primarily in robust upper paleolithic man, and the majority of Neanderthals."
"A skull found on Catalina Island that was from a skeleton that measured over 7 feet in height. The skull type is Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnon. The Cro-Magnon species that were generally robust and large sized. It is also the Cro-Magnon species that made up the Maritime Archaic (7000 B.C. - 2000 B.C). Maritime Archaic cultural remains have been found the extent of the world, generally in the Northern latitudes. Cro-Magnon skull from Obercassel Germany is very similar to the skull found on Catalina Island that is more evidence that the large skulls found on California's Channel Islands originated with the Maritime Archaic Cro-Magnons."
Delete"History of Jefferson County, N.Y., 1878
DeleteOne of the most conclusive evidences of ancient military occupation and conflict, occurs in Rutland, near the residence of Abner Tamblin, one mile from the western line of the town, and two miles from the river. It is on the summit of the Trenton limestone terrace, which forms a bold escarpment, extending down the river, and passing across the southern part of Watertown. There here occurs a slight embankment, and ditch irregularly oval, with several gateways; and along the ditch, in several places, have been found great numbers of skeletons, almost entirely of males and lying in great confusion, as if they had been slain in defending it. Among these bones were those of a man of colossal size, and like nine-tenths of the others, furnished with a row of double teeth in each jaw. This singular peculiarity, with that of broad flat jaws, retreating forehead, and great prominence of the occiput, which was common to most of these skulls, may hereafter afford some clue to their history."
"Lake County Illinois
Mr. W.B. Gray, of Highland Park, also mentions the discovery of a skull in a mound near Fox Lake, in Lake County, Illinois. This skull is certainly very remarkable; the frontal lobe or arch seems to be entirely wanting; the large projecting eye-brows, deep set eye sockets, the low, receding forehead, and the long, narrow and flat shape of the crown rendered it a very animal-looking skull. If it was not a posthumous deformation it certainly is a remarkable skull and might well pass for the "missing link."
Oakland Tribune, August 24, 1896
"SEVEN SKELETONS
A Remarkable Discovery Made at Shell Mound Park
SKULLS RESEMBLING APES
An interesting discovery has been made at Shell Mound Park, where the skeleton of a A prehistoric race of Indians was excavated. These skeletons are of a race unknown at present and are undoubtedly of great antiquity."
"Evening News, (Ada, Oklahoma) November 8, 1912
PRIMITIVE MEN OF GIGANTIC STATURE
Eleven skeletons of primitive men, with foreheads sloping directly back from the eyes, and two rows of teeth in the front of the upper jaw, have been uncovered at Craigshill, at Ellensburg, Wash. They were found about twenty feet below the surface, twenty feet back from the face of the slope, in a cement rock formation, over which was a layer of shale."
... "B-b-b-but those god damn f*****g femurs!!"
"Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912.
DeleteThe dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone's concept of a textbook standard.
They were enormous. These were not average human beings.
First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times, the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.
Their heights ranged between seven and nine feet and their skulls "presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day."
Above the eye sockets, "the head slopes straight back and the nasal bones protrude far above the cheek bones. The jaw bones are long and pointed, bearing a minute resemblance to the head of the monkey. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars."
"BUT THOSE F*****G FEMURS MAAAAAN!!!!!"
Delete"On 10 August 1891, the New York Times reported that scientists from the Smithsonian Institution had discovered several large "pyramidal monuments" on Lake Mills, near Madison, Wisconsin. "Madison was in ancient days the centre of a teeming population numbering not less than 200,000," the Times said. The excavators found an elaborate system of defensive works which they named Fort Aztalan.
Delete"The celebrated mounds of Ohio and Indiana can bear no comparison, either in size, design or the skill displayed in their construction with these gigantic and mysterious monuments of earth -- erected we know not by whom, and for what purpose we can only conjecture," said the Times.
On 20 December 1897, the Times followed up with a report on three large burial mounds that had been discovered in Maple Creek, Wisconsin. One had recently been opened.
"In it was found the skeleton of a man of gigantic size. The bones measured from head to foot over nine feet and were in a fair state of preservation. The skull was as large as a half bushel measure. Some finely tempered rods of copper and other relics were lying near the bones."
Giant skulls and skeletons of a race of "Goliaths" have been found on a very regular basis throughout the Midwestern states for more than 100 years. Giants have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and their burial sites are similar to the well-known mounds of the Mound Builder people.
The spectrum of Mound builder history spans a period of more than 5,000 years (from 3400 BCE to the 16th CE), a period greater than the history of Ancient Egypt and all of its dynasties.
There is a "prevailing scholarly consensus" that we have an adequate historical understanding of the peoples who lived in North America during this period. However, the long record of anomalous finds like those at Lake Delavan suggests otherwise."
"The December 17, 1891 issue of the respected journal Nature reported the discovery of a giant man buried 14 feet within the center of one of Ohio’s mysterious burial mounds. The enormous man’s arms, jaw, arms, chest and stomach were all clad in copper. Wooden antlers, also covered with copper, rested on either side of his head. His mouth was filled with large pearls, and a pearl-studded necklace of bear teeth hung around his neck. Who this man was, or to which race of people he belonged, is unknown."
Delete"In 1888, seven skeletons, which had been placed in a sitting position, were uncovered from a burial mound near Clearwater, Minnesota. The highly unusual skulls of these beings had double rows of teeth in both the upper and lower jaws. It was also noted that the foreheads were low and sloping, compared to “normal” human skulls, and had distinctly prominent brows."
Delete"Two Giant Skeletons Near Potosi, WI
DeleteThe January 13th, 1870 edition of the Wisconsin Decatur Republican reported that two giant, well-preserved skeletons of an unknown race were discovered near Potosi, WI by workers digging the foundation of a saw mill near the bank of the Mississippi river. One skeleton measured seven-and-a-half feet, the other eight feet. The skulls of each had prominent cheek bones and double rows of teeth. A large collection of arrowheads and “strange toys” were found buried with the remains."
"A written report by James H. Hart, the first of two miners to excavate the cave in the fall of 1911, recalls that in the north-central part of the cave, about four feet deep, "was a striking looking body of a man “six feet six inches tall.” His body was mummified and his hair distinctly red." Unfortunately in the first year of mining, some of the human remains and artifacts were lost and destroyed. "The best specimen of the adult mummies was boiled and destroyed by a local fraternal lodge, which wanted the skeleton for initiation purposes." Also, several of the fiber sandals found in the cave were remarkably large, and one reported at over 15 inches (38 cm) in length was said to be on display at the Nevada Historical Society's museum in Reno in 1952.
DeleteThe Paiute tradition asserts that the Si-Te-Cah people practiced cannibalism, and this may have had some basis in fact. During the 1924 excavation of the cave, a series of three human bones were found near the surface towards the mouth of the cave. "These had been split to extract the marrow, as animal bones were split, and probably indicate cannibalism."
"As the excavation of the cave progressed, the archaeologists came to the inescapable conclusion that the Paiutes myth was no myth; it was true. What led them to this realization was the discovery of many broken arrows that had been shot into the cave and a dark layer of burned material under sections of the overlaying guano. Among the thousands of artifacts recovered from this site of an unknown people is what some scientists are convinced is a calendar: a donut-shaped stone with exactly 365 notches carved along its outside rim and 52 corresponding notches along the inside.
But that was not to be the final chapter of red-haired giants in Nevada. In February and June of 1931, two very large skeletons were found in the Humboldt dry lake bed near Lovelock, Nevada. One of the skeletons measured 8.5-feet tall and was later described as having been wrapped in a gum-covered fabric similar to Egyptian mummies. The other was nearly 10-feet long.
[Nevada Review-Miner newspaper, June 19, 1931.]
INCREDIBLE NEW FIND:
This is absolutely HUGE….and it guts the wimp-out of Dr Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian who under (doubtless Jewish/Mormon) pressure, and as an obedient fed-government employee, came up with the lame reasoning that “we don’t even know if the Solutreans of the Ice Age (22,000-17,000 BC) left any descendants at all among modern Europeans…..” This is the same group of “scientists” at the Smithsonian who completely covered up the Johnson Canyon mummies found in BORED HOLES in solid sandstone cliffs near Kanab, Utah in the early 70′s!!"
"Eric Johns offered an example from 1911, where researchers named Pugh and Hart had found the remains of large, red haired humans at Sunset Cave close to Lovelock, Nevada. The remains found there were over seven feet tall, and some of the remains were shipped to the Smithsonian Institute by L.L. Loud, an archaeologist with the University of California, one year later.”These notes are still on digital file at the Hearst Museum of Anthropology,” Johns shared, “listed under reference number 544, An Anthropological Expedition of 1913.” But interestingly, Pugh and Hart, while releasing the majority of the remains to the Smithsonian, also managed to keep a number of the strange artifacts and bones they found, including several skulls, which Johns says remain today at the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, Nevada. The boxes obtained by the Smithsonian, however, cannot be accounted for so easily:
Delete[The University of California] seems to have misplaced the skeletons, yet the other material is still there and on display in their exhibits. The same can be said of the Smithsonian, who still use some of Loud’s artifacts for their Southwest exhibit at the National Museum of the American Indian. Again, no giant skeletons to be found in their exhibits or catalog."
"The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California published a paper on Lovelock cave, and wrote:
“The site has been extensively pothunted and many materials remain in private collections. Lovelock Cave, despite years of destruction, is one of the most important sites in the history of North American archaeology.”
Why is the site so significant? Because the artifacts represented items that showed there was in fact a culture of people living in the area that were quite unlike the nearby Paiutes – a tribe of people currently unknown in the field of human anthropology.
The efforts of the first archaeologist to arrive, L.L. Loud from UC, turned up a treasure trove of relics, including some impressive duck decoys used by this unknown culture – but not a mummy, as claimed by many that recount this tale around the Internet.
Unassisted, Loud conducted excavations in the cave from April to August, 1912, and collected approximately 10,000 archaeological specimens, most of which came from three locations."
... Now... This might be news to you, but nearly every single native tribe up and down the country has got canibalistic giants intertwined with their Bigfoot legends, or have outright legends of Bigfoot being cannibals. Now... What would be the single most important thing to verify those legends? You've got it! Biological evidence! Here we go, a scientific paper on the morphology of a giant skull found at lovelock cave!
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839
... So, what we have here, is documented biological evidence that explains giant and hominid morphology of a legend of Cannibalistic giants, eerily similar to nearly every other native tribe in North America. These aren't mammoth bones, these aren't giant sloths... This is a recorded scientific study.
No what you have here is nothing and you obviously haven't read what I'd cut and pasted earlier you dumb schmuck. All these reported digs unearthed nearly 100 or more years ago by people untrained in either archeology, forensics or biology reporting these strange large skeletons. Basically people with very limeted education by today's standards with no qualifications measuring dead remains with none of today's knowledge at a time of rampant hoaxes and sideshow gaffs.
DeleteWhat part of "when human bodies are put in the ground and the soft tissues decay that the bones actually migrate and that I'm 5ft 6"...you put me in the ground by the time all those tissues connecting all of my long bones decay away all that stuff... There's stretchage... "By the time I'm done if you measure from the tip of my head to the bottom of my it's probably gonna be a foot longer, I've already gained a foot by dying! Which sounds pretty damn impressive right? Well the other thing is you just get this incredible exaggeration of what people are finding and it's not excavated professionally or recorded professionally."
Hate to tell you this but science now is light years from where it was in 19th century and we know a lot more about the effects of decay on the human body than they did 100 plus years ago. The femur measurement is used by FORENSIC SCIENTISTS TO ACCURATELY MEASURE THE HEIGHT OF THE PERSON WHO DIED IT IS USED WHETHER THAT SKELETON WAS 10 YEARS OLD OR 10,000. FORENSIC SCIENTISTS USE THESE MEASUREMENTS TO SOLVE HOMICIDES AND HELP SOLVE MUSSING PERSON CASES, IT'S REAL SCIENCE YOU DUMMY NOT PSUDEO-SCIENCE BS BY A STONEMASON AND HIS PSYCHIC PALS!!!! YOU MUST BE A TROLL OR THE DUMBEST MOST GULLIBLE PERSON IN THE WHOLE OF THE BRITISH ISLES! YOU KNOW NOTHING YOU IMBECILE CONSIDER YOURSELF SCHOOLED HA HA HA!
DeleteBBBBBUUUUTTTT THEY MEASURED OVER 8 FOOT FROM HEAD TO TOE!!!! THESE WERE IN PUBLISHED PAPERS OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO!!!!! THEY WERE DUG UP BY RANDOMS WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF ARCHEOLOGY OR MODERN FORENSICS!!!! BBBBBUUUTTTT IT'S ALL REAL A RACE OF GIANT CANNIBALS!!!!!! ALL RECORDED BY PEOPLE IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHO ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE INTELLIGENT THAN ALL OF TODAY'S PROFESSIONAL ARCHEOLOGISTS AND FORENSIC SCIENTISTS!!!! THEY WERE EXACTLY WHERE THE NATIVE ANERICANS SAID THEY WOULD BE AND I'VE SUCESSFULLY RETROFITTED THEIR FOLK TALES TO MATCH MY VIEWS ON BIGFOOT AND GIANTS CREATING 10,000 YEARS OF HISTORY WHICH WASN'T REALLY THERE!!!!
DeleteQUICK JOE TELL DR MELDRUM AND HE'LL ASSEMBLE HIS SPECIAL HONORARY BOARD OF SCIENTISTS TO INVESTIGATE ALL THESE EXCITING CLAIMS FROM THE 19TH CENTURY WHEN SCIENCE WAS MORE ADVANCED THAN TODAY!!! WAIT...... THE EVIL SMITHSONIAN SWIPED ALL THE EVIDENCE!!!!! DAMN YOU ACADEMICS AND YOUR SECRET CLUB SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH SO SOCIETY DOESN 'T FALL APART BECAUSE OF THE GIANTS!!!! AND THE APEMEN!!!! AND THE UFOS!!!!! AND THE PSYCHICS!!!! WE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!! RELIGION WILL FALL APART AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE WILL CRUMBLE!!!!
DeleteUnlucky bumpkin!
DeleteThere's archaic features in those examples... Can't be just a mistake of collective scientific missmeasurement. Even a paper from 1967 that got 'archived', that has nothing to do with femurs. It lends to all reports that have the same reports. Those are giant, archaic features consistent with all other reports of similar finds. Quite a leap of faith to assume three generations of scientists during one of the most prosperous times in scientific advancement had it all wrong... Every single one of them... Such a leap. I think you've been praying too long.
You got smoked... I hope you're as angry as you're all caps suggests.
"B-b-b-but the femurs????? (Panting)"
Shut up and sit down... Turns out your heroes don't know sh*t.
; )
Ha ha ha ha!! You missed the boat on that one bro... Ha ha ha ha!!! Take some time and read someone else's comments for once, science boy, and stop maintaining an argument that got smashed ten comments ago. Your 'femur mistakes' are paired with consistent reports of archaic morphological traits that in that paper from 1967, shows you to be real. And that's all you have left like all good little psuedoskeptics, is cynicism and name calling... Keep doing your theory group proud.
DeleteScience boy... That's what I'm gonna call you from now on... It's got a nice ring to it.
Schooled. See you around.
; )
Loved the debunking sceptics website Joe, hilarious! Haven't laughed so much in a while you crazy psuedo-scientists cats are crazy :)
DeleteLove the rebuttal to the extraordinary claims argument
Delete"The point is that extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone. What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is a mystical force to Westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in China. There, chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and observed by us. Likewise, having Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences are extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who have them regularly, they are an ordinary part of life."
Oh dear New Age Joe is there any psuedo-science you won't except?
... Like relict hominids aren't that much of a difficult concept to those who have studied hominology at lenght?
Delete"In the ancient world, and even later, when the number of sciences was smaller, when scientists were philosophers and encyclopedists, they well knew of the existence of wild hairy bipeds whom they called troglodytes, that is “cavemen”. One of such philosophers and lumenaries of natural history was Carolus Linneaus, the author of the terms Homo sapiens and Homo troglodytes. For the latter he also used the terms “silvestris” and “nocturnus”. Thus Linnaeus is the forefather of our direction of science.
Anthropologists are still unaware of the remarkable historical fact that the central and pretentious term of anthropology – Homo sapiens – appeared in science just in contrast to Homo troglodytes, the Caveman, whose existence was known to naturalists of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Modern world science is a conglomerate of numerous sciences, which lacked however a discipline devoted to the study of relict hominids, and thus their existence happened to be beyond the scope of the scientific community, and this despite the fact that the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, for example, is well known to the US government. The reasons why this knowledge is not becoming official and public are also well known in America.
In short, relict hominids were unknown to science because there was no science to know them. Today we have such science. Since deep specialization of modern science is inevitable, the problem had to be resolved by creating one more special discipline – hominology, devoted to recognition and study of relict hominids."
- Dmitri Bayanov
Science boy... You know nothing of science that hasn't been moulded into your safe little preference.
DeleteMy work here is complete. Until next time, science boy.
Your work is bunk Joe as for molding things to fit a view that's really the pot calling the kettle black! The science I accept is tried and tested and based on empirical evidence not heresay or outdated misreported finds from over a hundred years ago.
DeleteSorry Joe but you're an epic fail.
The thread serves as an example of how much your heuristical ideals fall flat when you don't cherry pick information.
DeleteLaters science boy.
Hilarious again New Age Joe
DeleteSometimes when I watch Maury I touch myself.Is that bad?
ReplyDeleteD Campbell.
Touch away Dan. It's all good.
Deleteno worries - : )
DeleteWhat did you learn in the name of science when you shot a turd from your butt? xx
DeleteWell, I learned that pressure always takes the path of least resistance. And that past of least resistance would be me sphincter muscle
DeleteDC
Fascinating xx
Deletehappens all the time - its all good : )
DeleteBigfoot researcher.... It takes a closed, already made up mind.
ReplyDeleteand a flock of idiots
Delete..and what a flock it is. Someone called them the Rouges Gallery of Buffoon's up top some where. Seems about right.
DeleteWow, no shame in self promotion. ^
DeleteWhat? Are you referring to Fasano, Shaw or Johnson?
Delete