Colorado train passengers capture Bigfoot on video

Magical Realist said:
If you were planning on hunting for deer out in the woods, who would turn to for advice? A scientist that can tell you everything about the deer species. Or an experienced hunter who has actually spent alot of time hunting deer in the woods. I think the answer is obvious.
Click to expand...
I understand your point but “experienced deer hunters” capture deer, though. How can anyone claiming to be “an experienced Bigfoot hunter” be reliable when they’ve never actually captured one, they don’t even have testable DNA samples. So, I can plan a stake out in the woods, jump to the wrong conclusion that a bear footprint could be a sign of Bigfoot, and call myself an experienced Bigfoot hunter? lol C’mon.

The other thing too is, we have all seen deer at some point in our lives. We collectively agree that they exist. But no one has brought any verifiable evidence to the table when it comes to Bigfoot. Because that “species” likely doesn’t exist, not because Bigfoot is such an elusive creature. :rolleye:
 
The point of my hunter analogy is this: if there is a species out there whose existence is in question and in need of confirming, the opinion of scientists that it simply doesn't exist gets us nowhere. Why not provisionally retain an agnostic stance on the issue and examine the findings of the Bigfoot hunters who actually have spent time collecting scat and hair samples and footprint casts, sound and camera recordings of said species, and who are convinced from their own experience that the species does exist? Expertise does not arise from kneejerk denialism. It arises from those who actually go out and explore the possibilities. In fact, that is the true nature of science is it not?
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
It arises from those who actually go out and explore the possibilities. In fact, that is the true nature of science is it not?
Click to expand...
And when hypotheses are not confirmed, we accept those results too.

Absence of evidence in an alleged 27 encounters (that's just one of these guys, never mind all the others) does rise to the level of evidence of absense. Or nonsense. Or profit-mongering.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
The point of my hunter analogy is this: if there is a species out there whose existence is in question and in need of confirming, the opinion of scientists that it simply doesn't exist gets us nowhere. Why not provisionally retain an agnostic stance on the issue and examine the findings of the Bigfoot hunters who actually have spent time collecting scat and hair samples and footprint casts, sound and camera recordings of said species, and who are convinced from their own experience that the species does exist? Expertise does not arise from kneejerk denialism. It arises from those who actually go out and explore the possibilities. In fact, that is the true nature of science is it not?
Click to expand...
It is, but scientists would be all over actual tangible evidence if there was any. There isn’t any. This topic is slightly different than when we discuss UAP’s for the simple fact that it’s much easier to gain evidence from an alleged land creature than it is a flying object, soaring out of reach. Unless suspicious aircrafts make a crash landing, we’re left with only eyewitness testimony and grainy camera photos/videos. But, with Bigfoot, and all of the supposed sightings, we should have some conclusive evidence by now.

I just think that’s common sense, tbh.
 
Magical Realist said:
The point of my hunter analogy is this: if there is a species out there whose existence is in question and in need of confirming, the opinion of scientists that it simply doesn't exist gets us nowhere.
Click to expand...
This is not a question about people's prior expectations or opinions not based on evidence. Look where your opinions have got you!
Why not provisionally retain an agnostic stance on the issue and examine the findings of the Bigfoot hunters who actually have spent time collecting scat and hair samples and footprint casts, sound and camera recordings of said species, and who are convinced from their own experience that the species does exist?
Click to expand...
Why haven't the Bigfoot hunters with their scat, hair samples, footprint casts, recordings etc. attracted any interest from qualified zoologists, microbiologists, or any other qualified scientist?

Any Bigfoot hunters who were keen to prove the existence of a new species could pay a DNA testing lab to analyse their samples. The prior opinions of the people doing the testing would not affect any results obtained. These are scientists, remember.
Expertise does not arise from kneejerk denialism.
Click to expand...
Nor does it arise from fanboy wishful thinking.
It arises from those who actually go out and explore the possibilities.
Click to expand...
Why aren't any of your Bigfoot hunters interested in proving their assertions to the world?
 
It is, but scientists would be all over actual tangible evidence if there was any.
Click to expand...

Would they really though? Scientists have their reputations to protect. If they get to be known as the crazy professor who collects bigfoot casts, it might not bode well for their career. I think there is a huge stigma about research in this area just as there is for uaps. It is far easier to just go along with the crowd and ignore any new evidence investigators turn up. Hence the widespread assumption that there is no evidence turning up:

Primate DNA turns up in Appalachian region

https://www.travelchannel.com/shows/expedition-bigfoot/articles/expedition-bigfoot-exciting-dna-find

"This scientific expedition may have finally taken one of the world’s greatest mysteries out of the pages of legend and lore and into reality," said Dr. Mayor.

Miroslava Munguia Ramos, project manager at the UCLA California Environmental DNA program, has analyzed the eDNA sample from the tree structure. Following are her observations.

[/B]


    • "We received soil samples from your team and took a few months to get them processed. What we’re looking at are the unique organisms that we were able to identify. Our software does what’s known as metabar coding. So, it’ll match up all the DNA sequences that we were able to detect and try to cross reference them with the thousands of genomes that have been published and it’s pretty common that when we’re looking at environmental DNA samples, we detect humans, because there’s going be human traces almost everywhere."
    • "But what I found very interesting was that, yes, we have detected human DNA in these areas, but we’re still seeing different primate DNA. There wasn’t just one human primate, there are several different primates, some sort of primate relative that exists in the data."
    • "Pan troglodyte is a species of chimpanzee, which you would not see in the areas you’re at. It’s a real head scratcher. It’s important to note that the higher the detection, the more confidence we can say that whatever organism, whatever taxonomy we’re looking at was apparent in the area. And in this case, we’re looking at the Pan genus, or the chimpanzee genus…. there’s 3000 reads."
    • "The technology is constantly improving, it’s getting more accurate, and now it just really comes down to making sure we have enough samples and we’re confident that whatever we’re studying is a unique species."
Dr. Mayor expanded on this unique discovery.

    • "Finding what appears to be a very large structure, seemingly created with intention and requiring great strength as well as foresight, is interesting. It is not unheard of for primates to stack sticks or rocks, although for me, the jury is still out as to what that was. There is no guess work in science. It is great is that eDNA was collected from that site. That may give us the answers we are looking for."
    • "The process of describing and confirming a new species is difficult. DNA is absolutely essential in the scientific community to prove that something is a new or recognized species. You have eyewitness accounts from tens of thousands of people who say they have encountered Bigfoot, some coming forward with blurry videos and photographs. But that is just not going to cut it. What we need is indisputable genetic evidence to really put this mystery to rest. And there’s no doubt in my mind that we are headed in the right direction."
 
Last edited:
If she were to send off these alleged DNA samples to say, two or three independent labs and have them run an analysis without knowing of her findings, and they arrive at the same conclusions, then it would be worth noting that there is another primate species living among us.

Could Miroslava Ramos be considered an independent/objective analyst?
 
Magical Realist said:
Scientists have their reputations to protect.
It is far easier to just go along with the crowd and ignore any new evidence...
Click to expand...
That old trolling saw again.

Yes, scientists hate doing science. Completely untrustworthy and self-serving.
Film producers are the only honest people who can get anything done around here.

What a superstitious, paranoid, anti-science world you live in.
 
Last edited:
Alleged evidence. Evidence is the proof we need to conclude that Bigfoot exists.

So, the findings wouldn’t be considered “new evidence.” It’s not considered evidence unless it’s based on factual data that refutes Bigfoot as a fictitious creature lurking in the woods.
 
wegs said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/bigfoot-dna-discovered-last-not-so-fast-1c8380637

This is an interesting read, and I’m sharing it mainly because of their usage of the word “alleged,” which made me smile. :wink:
Click to expand...

Curiously, there was another genetic study of alleged Bigfoot samples circa the same year (2012). But it involved a worldwide collection rather than restricted to just North America.

Assuming, of course, that Melba Ketchum's lab even did conduct a DNA analysis -- that the latter was more authentic than the single issue lifespan of the DeNovo Scientific Journal she created and self-published through.

The other study:

'Bigfoot' samples analyzed in lab
https://www.science.org/content/article/bigfoot-samples-analyzed-lab

EXCERPT: Seven of the samples didn't yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.
_
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Curiously, there was another genetic study of alleged Bigfoot samples circa the same year (2012). But it involved a worldwide collection rather than restricted to just North America.

Assuming, of course, that Melba Ketchum's lab even did conduct a DNA analysis -- that the latter was more authentic than the single issue lifespan of the DeNovo Scientific Journal she created and self-published through.

The other study:

'Bigfoot' samples analyzed in lab
https://www.science.org/content/article/bigfoot-samples-analyzed-lab

EXCERPT: Seven of the samples didn't yield enough DNA for identification. Of the 30 that were sequenced, all matched the exact 12S RNA sequences for known species, the team reports online in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Ten hairs belonged to various bear species; four were from horses; four were from wolves or dogs; one was a perfect match to a human hair; and the others came from cows, raccoons, deer, and even a porcupine. Two samples, from India and Bhutan, matched polar bear 12S RNA—a surprising finding that Sykes is following up on to determine whether some Himalayan bears are hybrid species with polar bears.
_
Click to expand...
That’s very interesting! In this thread, I’ve learned that porcupines have hair. -_O Wonders never cease. lol Probably surface hairs that are barely there, like peach fuzz, maybe?

I’m unsure as to why I give more grace to UAP enthusiasts than I do Bigfoot “hunters”, but perhaps it’s simply due to the fact that it shouldn’t be this difficult to obtain DNA samples of a species that thousands upon thousands of people have spotted throughout North America, over the span of several decades.

This may be just me but I think the idea of Bigfoot DNA is just a distraction, but sounds believable enough to seem worth examining further.

I just want to see one reasonably clear photograph of the thing, at this point. :rolleye:
 
bhjqytzk5g06ck0l.jpg
 
Magical Realist said:
We all have a worldview we are protecting. Some are more experienced at this than others..:tongue:
Click to expand...
This is a mix of two logical fallacies:
  • gas-lighting: "your analysis is myopic and tinted by your worldview, therfore less valid"
  • lets agree to disagree: that every opinion, whether ignorant or erudite, is as valid as any other
As pointed out by other posters, there are modes of thinking that result in more and less valid opinions. Magical thinking, bandwagon thinking, and wishful thinking are examples of irrational thinking that lead to irrational opinions.

There are also worldviews that are supported by objective evidence and there are worldviews that are not supported by objective evidence. It is not a level playing field between Team Informed and Team Uninformed. Nor should it be.
 
[QUOTE="DaveC426913, post: 3721111, member:

There are also worldviews that are supported by objective evidence and there are worldviews that are not supported by objective evidence. It is not a level playing field between Team Informed and Team Uninformed. Nor should it be.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much how the thread started, either this is either a guy in suit or it's the "real deal" like they are equally weighted sides of the same coin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top