Hey WhoToTrust, always good to hear from you, hope you're doing well.
Here's some info from a short article at Time Magazine: http://time.com/2949457/bigfoot-dna-bear-animal/
This is regarding that Oxford study I have mentioned in other posts.
Relevant quotes:
The Oxford finding was the result of a three-year study that began in 2012 when researchers issued an open call for hair samples held in museums and private collections that were said to come from “an anomalous primate,”
Thirty-six samples from the U.S., Russia, Indonesia, India, Bhutan and Nepal were ultimately submitted
The samples, the investigators found, came from animals as diverse as bears, wolves, raccoons, porcupine, deer, sheep, at least one human, and a cow.
I'm sure you will like, the article also mentions:
“The fact that none of these samples turned out to be [Bigfoot] doesn’t mean the next one won’t,” said no less a person than Bryan Sykes, the Oxford researcher who led the study, according to the Associated Press.
I hope you can at least see at this point that there are researchers at prestigious institutions hoping to make a Bigfoot breakthrough. Legitimate science is being done, Bigfoot is not going un-researched.
A relevant point from the article:
The Guardian headlined its story on the announcement “DNA analysis indicates Bigfoot may be a big fake,” begging the question of what it might take to warrant a headline that Bigfoot is a big fake.
So back to your question.. you asked me to prove that there's nothing left to research.
Well, after three years of an open call for all samples from a supposedly "anomalous primate", from such a prestigious institution as Oxford University, what other evidence should we be waiting for?
Obviously, it's impossible to prove a negative, so the question relating to your point then is, what other evidence is out there that is going un-researched? Is there any?
If there is, why wouldn't they have submitted it to Oxford?
If you know of any Bigfoot evidence waiting to be researched, but is being ignored by the scientific community, we'd all love to hear about it.
As far as I can tell, all available evidence has been looked into. If you have some concrete information to add, feel free.
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by AlarmedGibbon » Hey WhoToTrust, always good to hear from you, hope you're doing well.
Here's some info from a short article at Time Magazine: http://time.com/2949457/bigfoot-dna-bear-animal/
This is regarding that Oxford study I have mentioned in other posts.
Relevant quotes:...
You're still neglecting/dismissing all the eyewitnesses who have ever come forward.
And your "
from what I've heard" comments offer no more legitimacy than all of the "
some people are saying" comments to be heard continuously on Fox News.
You're free of course to simply accept what you're told to believe from official channels, but the evidence is in that those channels cannot always be trusted.
So, if you're being truly objective, you have to ask yourself whether anyone can ever consider the "proof" you've just provided here entirely legitimate/believable/conclusive...which I hope you can at least see at this point shouldn't be difficult for you since that's exactly how you've always suggested the eyewitness evidence over the last few hundred years should be regarded.
reply
share
AlarmedGibbon
9 years ago
Question for you, WhoToTrust..
Do you think eyewitness testimony alone should be enough for scientists to officially accept Bigfoot as a real species?
Just trying to understand your thinking.
reply
share
blink8533
9 years ago
Your deep in the woods. I'm sure most those people are smoking something.
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by AlarmedGibbon » Question for you, WhoToTrust..
Do you think eyewitness testimony alone should be enough for scientists to officially accept Bigfoot as a real species?
Just trying to understand your thinking.
It seems you should have phrased your comment as "
trick" question Alarmed, since the answer to your
SPECIFIC question is obviously no.
What should be obvious to you at this point is that all I've ever actually said is that
ALL eyewitness testimony cannot automatically be discounted/discredited as you are always so quick and prone to suggest.
I have to admit I'm disappointed that you STILL conduct yourself in this way in these discussions.You phrase your questions/comments in that
specific/tricky way, and in that especially cordial manner...which could both be viewed as intentionally designed to create a perception that I am being illogical and/or unreasonable with my responses.
We both know though that not ALL eyewitnesses are
cranks (since that's what you're always really suggesting)...and...that the scientists you refer to are working with an "official" process that is flawed.
That process is currently reliant on comparing presented DNA evidence to a current database of known/"recognized" species. That being the case, evidence presented as being from a bigfoot could never officially be found to be conclusive since the database it is working with for comparison has no current DNA that has "officially been recognized" as bigfoot.
A convenient Catch-22 scenario if acknowledging the existence of such subject matter was not something that "officials" wanted to do anyway.
But by all means, feel free to continue playing your "skeptic" games as you please, and I will continue to respond to your "questions" in kind.
reply
share
AlarmedGibbon
9 years ago
WhoToTrust, you are being paranoid! =D
I'm a cordial person in real life, and so I talk and ask things in a cordial manner most of the time. If you and I met for a drink, we'd probably get along very well.
It wasn't a trick question, it was a regular old question, and I really do just want to understand your perspective better :)
You and I have been interacting long enough on these boards that I've actually grown fond of you!!!
You seem to think me very cynical, but I'm honestly not trying to be. I'm a skeptic, not a cynic. I'm actually fairly open minded about these things, but I can't just accept people's word for this sort of thing, there needs to be corroborating evidence for me.
And I am most definitely not trying to trick you! I promise, OK?
I know what you're saying about DNA having to compare an existing database, however I think that criticism doesn't really hold up now, since all of the available supposed-Bigfoot-hair-tufts have been positively identified as existing already known animals, and not as unknown-subjects.
Honestly, I appreciate you opening up a bit in this last response you gave! Thank you :)
And, please forgive me if I've been too harsh on you in the past. You know how the internet can be, you just let loose sometimes.
FYI, I don't think all eyewitnesses to such things are cranks. I do think there are a huge variety of reasons why people would incorrectly report something, and some of those would fall under the broad category of deception, and many others would fall under the broad category of legitimate misunderstandings. I have no idea what the proportions would be on either side of those.
Yes, science is flawed, because it's run by humans. But it's not like science hasn't accepted some really outlandish ideas, as long as they can be proven.
Quantum physics is super outlandish, but it's been proven time and again. Relativity seemed outlandish when first proposed. Even phenomenon like ball lightning are gaining scientific acceptance. So it's not like there's some super-high bar that is just unreachable.
Frankly, when you call these posts I make "skeptic games", that hurts my feelings a little bit. I've been honest, and straightforward, and friendly.
Look man, my sister, who I live with, believes in ghosts, and believes in Bigfoot. I have no enmity against people holding these beliefs.
I'm not clever enough to be tricky. I really just don't have it in me.
But regardless, I thank you for answering my question, even though you were skeptical.
I hope you can understand that the scientist in me needs to wait for corroborating evidence before I will accept anyone's stories for facts.
People say they see all sorts of things... how do we know which ones are real and which ones aren't? For me, the answer is corroborating evidence. I just have to wait for evidence nowadays.
So anyway, I like you WhoToTrust. You don't have to have your guard up with me, even if we're on opposite sides of an issue.
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
Well that all sounded good Gibbon, but unfortunately for you, you confirmed what I was suggesting about your possible intent with your very first sentence (which could be viewed as designed to discredit/dismiss) then simply proceeded with more of the same old same old Alarmed...as evidenced by the majority of all your other comments to all the other posters you've ever responded to on this message board.
Again...dissappointed.
reply
share
jpjst4
9 years ago
Is this debate actually serious? There would have to be a breeding population. We aren't talking about just one. Not one corpse has ever been found. Not one has been hit by a car yet half the witnesses claim to see them on the road. The show is a joke and so is anyone who believes in Bigfoot.
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by jpjst4 » Is this debate actually serious?
Is your post?
You've added nothing that has not already been discussed here at length.
reply
share
Head_Cheese74
9 years ago
It's amazing that a legendary BigFoot supposedly acts the same way on seven different continents.
Teasing people by appearing and then leaving before someone can get a clear snapshot of the supposed legendary creature..
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by doubting_Wayne » It's amazing that a legendary BigFoot supposedly acts the same way on seven different continents.
Teasing people by appearing and then leaving before someone can get a clear snapshot of the supposed legendary creature.
Then again, knowing what kinds of a'holes are running around in modern day society (as witnessed by the majority of the "skeptics" who populate these message boards), if I were a bigfoot I wouldn't want anyone knowing I was real either.
reply
share
runit73
9 years ago
I'm thinking Bigfoot may be one of Santa's elves, and he has access to Santa's magic. Bigfoot is seen all over the world like Santa. There is never any hard evidence for his existence like Santa. Bigfoot is often seen lurking around people spying on them. He is everywhere and nowhere. He sees you but you rarely see him. Bigfoot is how Santa knows if you are naughty or nice.
reply
share
Head_Cheese74
9 years ago
I'm thinking Bigfoot may be one of Santa's elves, and he has access to Santa's magic. Bigfoot is seen all over the world like Santa. There is never any hard evidence for his existence like Santa. Bigfoot is often seen lurking around people spying on them. He is everywhere and nowhere. He sees you but you rarely see him. Bigfoot is how Santa knows if you are naughty or nice.
BigFoot also knows when someone is abusing Alcohol or Drugs.
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by runit73 » I'm thinking Bigfoot may be one of Santa's elves, and he has access to Santa's magic. Bigfoot is seen all over the world like Santa. There is never any hard evidence for his existence like Santa. Bigfoot is often seen lurking around people spying on them. He is everywhere and nowhere. He sees you but you rarely see him. Bigfoot is how Santa knows if you are naughty or nice.
You're obviously thinking of The Abominable Snowman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJriPD40HY8
reply
share
jefferystock
9 years ago
Who to Trust -
If there was REAL evidence of Bigfoot, it would be breaking news. It would be WORLDWIDE news. Everybody would be talking about it. You wouldn't hear about it first on 'Finding Bigfoot'. The FACT is, there are NO FACTS.
I would love for Bigfoot to exist. I watched this show many times. I stopped watching when Bobo appeared in a dress trying to lure a male Bigfoot. That alone should let everyone know the show is BS (even if Bigfoot really exists, the show is BS).
I'm not saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does (and if you're honest with yourself, you know you haven't either).
You might argue that, I've never seen 'God' (whatever 'God' means to each individual - to me God is mother nature/science), but I do believe in creation because everywhere I look I see creation. I.E. trees, life, rocks, flowing water.
'Bigfoot' actually DID exist long ago. There are skeletons from 10,000 years ago, found in Asia, of a creature that fits the Bigfoot description. However, that was long ago, an ape species that died out, just like Neanderthal and other primate or homo erectus species.
Until REAL evidence is found/submitted, Bigfoot is just a myth - like dragons (which would also be awesome).
reply
share
WhoToTrust
9 years ago
by jefferystock » Who to Trust -
If there was REAL evidence of Bigfoot, it would be breaking news. It would be WORLDWIDE news. Everybody would be talking about it. You wouldn't hear about it first on 'Finding Bigfoot'. The FACT is, there are NO FACTS.
I would love for Bigfoot to exist. I watched this show many times. I stopped watching when Bobo appeared in a dress trying to lure a male Bigfoot. That alone should let everyone know the show is BS (even if Bigfoot really exists, the show is BS).
I'm not saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that it does (and if you're honest with yourself, you know you haven't either).
You might argue that, I've never seen 'God' (whatever 'God' means to each individual - to me God is mother nature/science), but I do believe in creation because everywhere I look I see creation. I.E. trees, life, rocks, flowing water.
'Bigfoot' actually DID exist long ago. There are skeletons from 10,000 years ago, found in Asia, of a creature that fits the Bigfoot description. However, that was long ago, an ape species that died out, just like Neanderthal and other primate or homo erectus species.
Until REAL evidence is found/submitted, Bigfoot is just a myth - like dragons (which would also be awesome).
I never said the majority of THIS show wasn't BS.
The fact of the matter is though that evidence HAS been presented. When the majority of "skeptics" continually illustrate that their main intent is to mock and ridicule ALL evidence presented, it's no wonder that some people believe that no credible evidence has ever been presented...almost as if that was the intent of the "skeptics all along. I would expect any objective reviewer of ALL the evidence to acknowledge that though.
I'll leave the semantic arguments comparing the possible existence of Bigfoot to things like the existence of God, unicorns, fairies, Santa Claus, dragons, etc, to those who continually prove they're purposefully playing stupid about the inherent differences between such things and are only here to engage in intellectually dishonest discussions.
reply
share
contact-81222
9 years ago
I hear you man, of all of those things, Bigfoot is the most likely to currently exist.
Dragons may have existed to some extent as a type of dinosaur. Santa Claus was supposedly a regular dude in a Northern European village long ago who made toys for the local kids at Christmas (but not the flying reindeer and little working elves ?).
I WANT Sasquatch to exist, I just don't see how over the span of so many centuries, worldwide, no one has ever caught one in a bear trap, or hunted one down.
I will give you this:
One thing that I do wonder about though, is all of the eyewitnesses. It seems like a complete waste of time to make it up and go to meetings and interviews. I know some idiots have nothing better to do, but there certainly are a lot of people who claim to have witnessed Bigfoot, Yeti, Sasquatch or some variety.
Anyway, cheers.
reply
share