How to hunt Bigfoot in Washington State

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magical Realist said:
So confirmation that the sound recordings were altered is not scientific?
Click to expand...
You have one claim that the recordings were not altered. No, that is not scientific. Science is repeatable. Submit those recordings to be tested independently.

And even if the recordings themselves have not been tampered with, that's no indication that human voices weren't altered/distorted to make the recordings. You're hanging way too much on one claim to be anywhere near scientific.
 
You have one claim that the recordings were not altered. No, that is not scientific. Science is repeatable. Submit those recordings to be tested independently.

And even if the recordings themselves have not been tampered with, that's no indication that human voices weren't altered/distorted to make the recordings. You're hanging way too much on one claim to be anywhere near scientific.
Click to expand...

No...one scientific analysis is sufficient to prove the origin of the noises. There is no rule for multiple opinions in science.
 
Magical Realist said:
No...one scientific analysis is sufficient to prove the origin of the noises. There is no rule for multiple opinions in science.
Click to expand...
What part of "repeatable" do you not understand?

No, one analysis is never enough. In a situation involving an exceptional claim like a new species, a hundred analyses is not enough - because the authenticity of the recording does not point irrevocably to the conclusion of Bigfoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top