Skeptic finds 4 year Bigfoot project "intriguing"

[Magical Realist]

You mean like evidence that Bigfoot is real?

We're all still waiting for ANYTHING even close to that.

You're kidding me. This whole thread has presented nothing BUT evidence, when it wasn't being sidetracked with bullshit lies about rock-throwing bears, sea otters, and opossum DNA results. Are you saying none of the video, audio, eyewitness testimony, footprint casts, hair samples, etc posted here was evidence? What the hell was it then?

 

[paddoboy]

I hear Bigfoot one some award in the States overnight.
I also heard that he couldn't be there to accept it, but he left a message thanking everyone for believing in him.

 

[paddoboy]

I have a theory on Bigfoot......
My theory: It's not the photographers fault.
Bigfoot is just blurry, that's the problem.

 

[Daecon]

You're kidding me. This whole thread has presented nothing BUT evidence, when it wasn't being sidetracked with bullshit lies about rock-throwing bears, sea otters, and opossum DNA results. Are you saying none of the video, audio, eyewitness testimony, footprint casts, hair samples, etc posted here was evidence? What the hell was it then?

Lies, hoaxes, wishful thinking and wilful ignorance.

 

[Magical Realist]

Lies, hoaxes, wishful thinking and wilful ignorance.

You're making a claim now. Now prove that all this evidence is hoaxed. I'll wait..

 

[Daecon]

You're the one making the claim that this "evidence" is authentic, so you're the one who has to back up the claim.

You've been here long enough to know that by now.

 

[Kittamaru]

Duh..That's what I said in my post. Do you even know how to read?

I do, but you don't, apparently. I gave you the chance to retract your lies, and you doubled down on them... bad idea.

Original post:

"She's lying ofcourse. All Bell's claims that the 112 samples were contaminated, or really oppossum dna, or really just human dna, were proven to be lies put out by the skeptical bloggers and a Houston chronicle reporter who needs to drum up business for his paper. It also operates on an ignorance of the difference between mitochondrial dna and nuclear dna. You have only to read posts 275, 278, and 279 to see the final conclusion on this matter."

Uh huh... see below

You will ofcourse read posts 275, 278, and 279 like I already said to to confirm the lies she has propagated. Or do I need to report you to James again for still trying to find an excuse to ban me?

Go for it bub

The "Post ###" parts are links, in case you can't tell:

Post 275

Misinformation and misdirection. Here's why:

1) First and foremost - have you ever licked sandpaper MR? Give it a try - I can say with 100% certainty that sandpaper will NOT make your tongue bleed from licking it. Now, perhaps if you licked a belt sander while it was running it might, but more than likely it'd just be a bad abrasion, no blood. Trust me - I've worked with my Grandfather in his shop long enough to know what kind of injuries sandpaper can actually cause.

2) If Ketchum's findings were so solid, why is it that no other lab in the world can duplicate them? You are using Ketchums own words as the basis for evidence that she is "being kept down"... yet there is zero evidence of it.

3) Your mtDNA evidence scenario is flawed, and here's why. mtDNA will estabish lineage through the maternal side as it remains unchanged (inherited soley from the mother). Great, but this brings up a question of sample/population size. Ketchum is claiming the three mtDNA matched each other. This presents a problem - if Bigfoot all has a single maternal point of lineage, then how is there enough genetic diversity to ensure procreation? Even if we assume the original "bigfoot" was a creation of a woman and an unknown hominid... then what did that first bigfoot procreate with to ensure genetic diversity, as well as offspring viability - do recall the issues with Ligers - the offspring is entirely sterile, incapable of producing children.

These questions MUST be answered... because otherwise, we are looking at nothing more than a possible one-off mutation that has died off long ago, which leaves the current "sightings" as nothing more than elaborate hoaxes.

Post 276 (which you conveniently skipped) shows Bells calling you out for twisting and changing what she said - that, sir, is intellectual dishonesty on YOUR PART... so go ahead, cry to James, he won't disagree with that.

Post 278 - you claim Bells is lying, yet cannot prove it... nto to mention more twisting on your part:

Bells said

Is that what I said? No, it isn't. So why are you twisting my words? This is why you are so often accused of intellectual dishonesty.

I said the human DNA was 100% human. The unknown part that they attributed to hairy "hominid", they did so because they did not know what it was and it was not matching with the known samples of animals they were testing against.

You're not making any sense. You say the DNA was 100% human, and then you claim part of it (the nuclear DNA?) was of a possum?

Where in the flying fuck did you get "possum" out of "hairy hominid"? Quit being intentionally dishonest!

As for post 279 - nice, a wordpress site! I can go make one of those as well, and claim that I can cure cancer by smacking you with my penis... does that make it true? It's on the internet... it MUST be true, right?

Plus, the guy isn't exactly what I would call "credible"
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/03/robert-lindsay-concedes-rick-dyers-hank.html

So, Robert Lindsay (a staunch supporter of Rick Dyer's hoax) left us a voicemail today asking us to call him back. Here's how the conversation went this morning:

• Me: Sup, man.
• Robert Lindsay: Rick Dyer's Bigfoot has been proven to be fake!
• Me: That's news?
• Robert: Go check out my recent article. It's fake! But I have a theory that Dyer might be hauling around a fake body because the government refused to give him permission to tour the country with a real Bigfoot.
• Me: Oh, really? Is that what you believe now? We've been saying it's fake the whole time, man.
• Robert: Yep. Christopher Noel and I still believe he has the body somewhere.
• Me: Robert. Do you know that he [Dyer] said the same thing in the 2008 hoax? -- Dyer claimed the government took his "real" body and he was forced to put the monkeysuit in the freezer? He's taken you for a ride.
• Robert: You win, man.
• Me: I'm going to repost your blog, and you know what I'm going to put in the title? "Robert Lindsay Concedes: Rick Dyer's "Hank" Bigfoot Is %100 Fake".
• Robert: Sure. I'm fine with that. You guys win.

Not to mention Robert Lindsay's credentials... from his own wordpress:

About
Independent Left journalist in California. Aging roué, lumpen trustafarian in a shackteau, slumming it up in the barrio. Revolutionary, patriotic Leftist, Christian, liberation theology, replacement theology.

Education: BA Journalism (California State University, Long Beach, 1980), MA Linguistics (California State University, Fresno, 1994).

Politics: Green Party, Communist Party USA, Democratic Party.

I'm sorry, I dont' see ANYTHING in there pegging him as a trained genealogist or even a biologist!

So, now, kindly tell me why we should accept that a random journalist with no training what so ever would be capable of disproving the results of literally DOZENS of genetic labs?

 

[billvon]

Bigfoot is just blurry, that's the problem.

Actually he's invisible. Native Americans have known this for centuries. (See below.) So when you see a picture of the wilderness with nothing unusual in it - that's proof that Bigfoot exists.
================================
Bigfoot powers

Invisibility
The most stunning property attributed to Bigfoot is his ability to disappear and appear suddenly, as if "dissolving" into thin air. This unusual property has led to various, sometimes fantastic hypotheses of Bigfoot's origin. Some tend to look for its tracks in other dimensions, while others connect its appearance with UFO activity.

Many elder Indian people have been reported telling that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance. They also pretend that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down.

Tibetan "red-hatted" monks say that the "yeti" possesses control over its will or, to be more specific, it can stop the activity of its brain specially to become invisible. Monks themselves practice this mantra as a necessary part of their gradual perfection.
The "red-hatted" monks believe that Bigfoot is the only creature on Earth that has preserved the ability to dissolve and become completely invisible to those around it. The monks say that Europeans have often sighted it, observed Bigfoot as a real object, and even followed it. Each time they were left disappointed as Bigfoot vanished into thin air.

Maya Bykova, a russian scientist and explorer, coined a term for the phenomenon of Bigfoot's sudden disappearances: the creature "camouflages its biofield" to become invisible. This phenomenon has been noted in Bigfoot encounters in the Himalayas (although, Bykova noted, the creature knows no limits and can be encountered on all five continents).

Professor Porshnev in his 1974 book “About Early Human History” has tried to bound the phenomenon of invisibility. Excessive psychic, nervous or physical strain can trigger spontaneous natural autotraining that leads to a lethargic state. This does not produce complete physical disappearance, but invisibility vis-a-vis the observer.

Professor Porshnev concluded that humans have lost this and similar abilities as a result of the increasing complexity of the human psyche. In the course of evolution the humans have gained much, including speech, but have lost something at a certain stage of our evolution, too.
Bigfoot, who has not attained the capacity for speech, may be a creature parallel to homo sapiens, our genetic companion, but with supernatural powers that enable him to remain on Earth like Adam in Eden.
================================
http://cryptozoo.monstrous.com/bigfoot_powers.htm

 

[garbonzo]

. . . when you are five. Beyond that? Not so much.

I obviously didn't through a typical tantrum, that was obvious hyperbole, unless you want to show my "uncontrollable outburst of anger"?

Whatever my comments were are justified. Neither Daecon nor origin have backed up their claim. Focus on this please, instead of stupid ad hominem attacks.

You mean like evidence that Bigfoot is real?

This is a red herring. The topic is your fallacious claim. I didn't make any.

 

[garbonzo]

I also heard that he couldn't be there to accept it, but he left a message thanking everyone for believing in him.

That's a good one. I also laughed at the one about Bigfoot watching Star Wars but being thrown out for throwing rocks at the screen. Maybe I can tolerate you guys if you keep up the good humor.

I can go make one of those as well, and claim that I can cure cancer by smacking you with my penis

I'm willing to give it a shot, where do I sign up?

 

[garbonzo]

You're the one making the claim that this "evidence" is authentic, so you're the one who has to back up the claim.

Yes he does, but if YOU make a claim, YOU also have to back that up. Why doesn't Daecon and origin get a warning for not backing up their claims? Bias much?

So, now, kindly tell me why we should accept that a random journalist with no training what so ever would be capable of disproving the results of literally DOZENS of genetic labs?

Coincidentally, this logical fallacy is called GENETIC. Feel free to show how the Wordpress article is wrong instead of pointing out its incredibility.

 

[Daecon]

We don't have to "back up" disbelief of an obviously stupid claim.

 

[Bells]

No duh. But thanks anyway for also provided a source that discredited lying-Daecon here.

I don't exactly see how you believe that is the case. You whined that the testing was too expensive. Other posters, including Daecon advised that it is really quite cheap. You refused to believe it, whined that scientists won't even do the tests and that it is expensive. I provided you with evidence that at least one actual and credited scientist is doing the testing for free.

I don't quite get why you are trying to turn your obvious error around onto everyone else.

Hmm?

I'm sorry, but I thought your argument is that testing isn't expensive because this guy will test them for free? For that to be true he would still have to be accepting samples. This was only the first testing round.

No. My argument was to point out that a) you clearly have not read the thread and b) you obviously do not know what you are talking about.

I suppose you are in this thread, trying to rehash what has already been discussed and trying to get people to repeat themselves over and over again because you are trolling.

Assumptions that this somehow disproves Bigfoot. From your link:



You shouldn't be parading around saying, "I told you so!" just yet.

I'm not. I said the samples tested showed no bigfoot. Not surprising.

Why are you twisting my words around?

What other test? Are you sure that's the same test I'm talking about?

There were two particular studies discussed in this thread. Perhaps you could read the thread and see for yourself.

What? I'm not trying to say bears don't exist.

That is not what I asked.

Perhaps you feel you are clever enough to take things out of context and try to twist them back around, but you aren't clever enough to do that.

There's no proof tests can be done for $100. YOUR OWN LINK proves that it costs at least $2000.

In Sykes lab, yes. But DNA tests are conducted by other places for much less than that.

And $2000 is not that much money.


Also, others have provided you with evidence that DNA tests can be conducted for $100 and less.

Perhaps now you can explain why you are trying to avoid that evidence and why you are trying to twist what people say around?

Thanks for that, it's great. But that doesn't prove the tests themselves cost nothing. He says it costs him $2000 out of pocket.

Yes. In his own lab that he works in. But as others have proven and provided evidence and even a very large graph, DNA tests can be had for much less than that elsewhere in the US.

So someone asks me how much Project Cars (a video game) costs, I say $49.99. They say, "No, it's free." I say, that can't be true, why would a game be free. And they say some guy down the street is giving away the game for free and that proves that the game is free and that I'm full of shit.

Just because someone is paying for it doesn't mean the testing is free. My argument that it is too expensive is now negated, but that doesn't mean I lied when I said it doesn't cost $100....

It is free in the sense that it will not cost you anything.

You lied and misrepresented what people have said here. As I noted above, you aren't clever enough for this type of double talk. It just makes you look very dishonest.

Those websites are both for human testing.

It's hilarious that you think you know better than a geneticist that actually works in the field. You obviously don't know much, you are intellectually dishonest, and arrogant, you think you know it all when you know nothing. Am I free to call you a liar now?

Shouldn't be a problem. Ketchum, the study MR has bent over backwards like a demented pretzel to defend, has declared that her personal tests prove that bigfoot is human.

Do you think Ketchum and MR are lying and bigfoot is not human?

Some labs won't test it at all, and others cost a lot. What's so hard for you to understand? Money doesn't grow on trees.

Money is printed on paper or mixture of paper, which comes from trees.

Secondly, whatever the cost may be, that isn't anyone's concern. If you can't foot the bill, that is no one's problem.

 

[garbonzo]

We don't have to "back up" disbelief of an obviously stupid claim.

Sorry, but wrong. You should know this by now. You don't have to back up your disbelief, but if you make a claim, you do have to back it up. What claim is obviously stupid by the way? That Bigfoot exists?

Other posters, including Daecon advised that it is really quite cheap.

He didn't say it was "quite cheap", if he said that I would have asked what his definition of cheap was, he agreed with origin that DNA testing for Bigfoot costs as little as $100. Specifics really do make a difference, so stop being intellectually dishonest and state the facts. They never backed that claim up and ignores it ever happened.

I don't quite get why you are trying to turn your obvious error around onto everyone else.

How am I doing that? What obvious error did I make? Like I said, the actual testing is not free. Just because it is subsidized by someone doesn't change that fact.

I'm not. I said the samples tested showed no bigfoot. Not surprising.

Why are you twisting my words around?

All I said was that you shouldn't make assumptions, I didn't say that you did:

We can hardly make assumptions after the first round.

Now who is twisting whose words around here?

That is not what I asked.

Err, I went back and I see that I quoted the wrong part. Let's try this again.

And there are thousands more eyewitness accounts that the big hairy things in the woods are bears.

What? I'm not trying to say bears don't exist, like you are saying Bigfoot doesn't exist.

In Sykes lab, yes. But DNA tests are conducted by other places for much less than that.

$2000 is on the low end actually, check Russ_Watters' link. Since it is Sykes' own lab, it should be. If he knew a way to do it cheaper, don't you think he would, since it is his own money? Again, you are saying you know more than the expert without a good reason for why. It's simply ridiculous.

Also, others have provided you with evidence that DNA tests can be conducted for 100 and less.

How many times do I have to tell you that this is idiotic bunk?

Perhaps now you can explain why you are trying to avoid that evidence and why you are trying to twist what people say around?

Explain. You should be talking about yourself.

But as others have proven and provided evidence and even a very large graph, DNA tests can be had for much less than that elsewhere in the US.

Dude, even that graph says it costs about $7.5 - 8K as it looks like to me.

You lied and misrepresented what people have said here.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Ketchum, the study MR has bent over backwards like a demented pretzel to defend, has declared that her personal tests prove that bigfoot is human.

It was my understanding, reading the thread, that she was saying it is a human hybrid. Paternity tests will not do anything. We don't even have a sample of the supposed father. Try again, man, this is getting real tired.

Do you think Ketchum and MR are lying and bigfoot is not human?

Unlike you guys, I remain agnostic on a subject unless there is enough evidence to say one way or another. I appreciate the debate on the subject. I believe through honest debate we can arrive at a conclusion on any matter. Too often though, even in science communities like this one, debates get sidetracked with dishonesty and detraction.

The best video evidence I've seen on this subject is this one:

Either this is the best hoax I've ever seen or it's the real deal, you decide. Be sure to watch it in HD for full quality.

 

[Daecon]

Yes, the claim that bigfoot exists is obviously stupid because there is not, and has never been, any definitive proof that bigfoot has ever existed. The only claims that have ever been made are all hoaxes, lies, and ignorance.

 

[Russ_Watters]

$2000 is on the low end actually, check Russ_Watters' link. Since it is Sykes' own lab, it should be. If he knew a way to do it cheaper, don't you think he would, since it is his own money? Again, you are saying you know more than the expert without a good reason for why. It's simply ridiculous.

So just to be clear: you and/or Sykes are unwilling to spend $2000 to prove your claims?

 

[origin]

Either this is the best hoax I've ever seen or it's the real deal, you decide. Be sure to watch it in HD for full quality.

That is the best hoax you have ever seen? Geeze, you really need to get out more. I could have rented a gorilla suit and done that video in an afternoon.

 

[garbonzo]

That is the best hoax you have ever seen? Geeze, you really need to get out more. I could have rented a gorilla suit and done that video in an afternoon.

Prove it. Go out, rent your gorilla suit, and perform the same actions seen in the video with the same fluidity to your actions. If you do this convincingly, I'll believe this was a suit also. But you won't. Because you won't spend your, good time, effort, blood, sweat, tears, and money performing a stupid hoax for no money and very little fame. This is in the middle of a swamp by the way. In a hot monkey suit. In fact, I'd even give you a medal for going through that.

And my prophecy has come true:

Even if I showed you a recording of Bigfoot, you'd just claim it is someone in a suit, am I right or am I wrong? Even a recording is not proof enough for you.

There is obviously no video evidence that you will not outright dismiss, so don't ask for it.

Yes, the claim that bigfoot exists is obviously stupid because there is not, and has never been, any definitive proof that bigfoot has ever existed. The only claims that have ever been made are all hoaxes, lies, and ignorance.

On a percentage of 0% - 100% how sure of you that no bipedal hairy hominid creature exists that we don't know about?

 

[paddoboy]

On a percentage of 0% - 100% how sure of you that no bipedal hairy hominid creature exists that we don't know about?

100%

 

[billvon]

Either this is the best hoax I've ever seen or it's the real deal, you decide. Be sure to watch it in HD for full quality.

It's a hoax. You can see him, so it's not Bigfoot. He's invisible.