Les Stroud. You all know who he is right? Well...

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The cost of an animatronic head alone would be ridiculous for the average person.


Why would it need to be animatronics???



It moves. Not a lot, but there is movement. Hence, animatronic, or some really fancy puppet. Neither would be cheap.


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The Bigfoot DNA stuff, now.....that's something weirder, and creepier.


Do you have any links to papers or where an unbiased scientist (ie. not an associate of Ketchum for instance), preferably one associated with a University, has submitted and is willing to stake their reputation on such?


Sorry, not playing that game. It's known that the mainstream scientific community is very close minded on ANY issue that isn't "accepted", and that the research faced serious publication problems. That doesn't mean you can assume any and all that agree with her are somehow not credible, and ONLY the ones that didn't are. Censoring the information to make it appear invalid is a tried-and-true technique, and you should know that.


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
As to Ketchum's claims, she withdrew her paper rather than go through review (it wasn't rejected) and bought a journal to publish it in (it is the ony paper to appear in this publication). As to the paper itself...


Some refused to even review the work, others leaked reviews. There was mockery. The controversial nature of the entire topic insured that from the start. REAL science isn't a popularity contest, however, but a journey for truth.


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Dr. Haskal Hart (Ph.D Chemistry) was initially supportive, but after months of reviewing her paper closely with none other than Ketchum herself.....conclusion - its nonsense, she found no genome and is severely deluded. He even submitted a paper about it to Ketchums "De Novo" journal...without response.


So some mainstream guy claims it's BS, and you assume he's right, and she's wrong?


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au...


From his comments on your link -

Although my education and professional experience are in the fields of physical, inorganic, and analytically chemistry,

He's not even in the field, but he knows better than one that is, and claims what she labels primate is bear and dog? And that's credible in your eyes?


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Dr. John Timmer (Biochemist with a Ph.D in Molecular and Cell Biology) also sought clarification where necessary (from Ketchum herself) in his review, which is rather a sympathetic and kind review really. His conclusion - it's nonsense, there is no genome of anything, it's a botched study and a good example of extreme confirmation bias.

arstechnica.com...


He assumed contamination, even after being told they were careful about that. He ASSUMES, with no evidence other than that the results are unusual. She stated clearly that the samples were carefully gathered, and there was no contamination. He then claims that forensic scientists aren't as credible as other types. Maybe he should be a defense attorney, and explain that the forensic guys really aren't knowledgeable about what they do, and all criminals convicted on DNA evidence should be released. *sarcasm off*


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Here's a group of young scientists speaking with Dr. David Winter (Ph.D Evolutionary Genetics/Biology, who does have experience in genome sequencing) about Ketchum's paper. Amongst the laughter at times, he explains quite well why it is nonsense. It prompted one of them to wonder if there is a giant Panda type creature made up of dirt, dog and cat droppings with the hair of opossum and racoon holding it all together somehow wandering the forests of NA, uncatalogued of course lol.

www.youtube.com...


A bunch of students gathering on YT is not a credible source of validation or invalidation.


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
There is something seriously wrong in the academic community in a certain part of the world. This is very reminiscent of creation science.


No; it's a perfect description of the academia of science that you believe is so credible. Anything that isn't wanted, or "accepted" is derided and mocked. Derision isn't part of the scientific method.




posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

It moves. Not a lot, but there is movement. Hence, animatronic, or some really fancy puppet. Neither would be cheap.

Again, why would it necessarily need to be animatronic (or a puppet) to be fake? Why are you only considering these two options?


Sorry, not playing that game.


= No, you can't.


It's known that the mainstream scientific community is very close minded on ANY issue that isn't "accepted", and that the research faced serious publication problems.

No, that isn't "known". It is assumed by quacks in general though, as opposed to real scientists who go back and provide better science after rejection.


That doesn't mean you can assume any and all that agree with her are somehow not credible, and ONLY the ones that didn't are. Censoring the information to make it appear invalid is a tried-and-true technique, and you should know that.

It doesn't require an assumption at all as much as not really being able to find any credible scientist who does agree. There are some claims of genuine research type scientists agreeing, that always end up with "page not found" though. Surprisingly, the co authors themselves are very quiet on the subject.

Ketchum censored it herself by refusing to go through peer review and publish her results.


Some refused to even review the work, others leaked reviews. There was mockery. The controversial nature of the entire topic insured that from the start. REAL science isn't a popularity contest, however, but a journey for truth.

Papers get rejected by publications all the time. In fact, most do. Why should Ketchum be any different? It is quite the opposite anyway, she withdrew it from review from one very credible publication rather than admit there were problems, let alone fix it (would you like a link to a scientist who reviewed it?).

That the authors didn't seem to know that they can use spellcheck, or understand the phylogenic tree and unknowingly used well known "April 1st" type joke papers as genuine references could have had something to do with it (they even spelt the proposed subspecies name wrong to zoobank). Though it was really the trouble they had supporting their bogus conclusions, that was probably the main reason it was withdrawn. Rather than fix the main problems, it's easier to run off with a "Galileo Complex" and claim a "conspiracy of science".

The wookie/rug she provided that apparently likes her blueberry bagels probably didn't help either though. The reason for that for anyone not visually impaired is that it's obviously fake and ridiculous with nothing provided to indicate it being otherwise.


So some mainstream guy claims it's BS, and you assume he's right, and she's wrong?

No assumptions necessary, you mean 7 or 8 "mainstream guys" who entirely disagreed with it. Including at least one Ph.D in Evolutionary Genetics/Biology who has research experience in this very subject. It is more about considering their interpretations, explanations and conclusions. Did you?


He's not even in the field, but he knows better than one that is, and claims what she labels primate is bear and dog? And that's credible in your eyes?

Qualifications are important to establish likely relevant knowledge and expertise and as such should be (and are) taken seriously. The methods, data, interpretation and reproducibility etc. are most important and these are largely what she refused scrutiny of.

We know Ketchum studied for 2yrs to gain her Doctorate and enter Vet School, which enables her to administer horse tablets in at least one state (though possibly not others), but seems to list no other academic credentials that anyone can find...yet you are sneering at not only a "Chemistry Ph.D " but others including a research scientist with a "Ph.D in Evolutionary Genetics/Biology" and you think that helps you? It doesn't.

Haskal Hart Ph.D was a big supporter of her study and urged everyone to give it a fair appraisal despite the subject. He also seems to believe bigfoot is likely to exist and thus seems like a good and unbiased reviewer who spent 8 mths studying her results, consulting closely with Ketchum herself, before reaching conclusion and trying to submit his own paper to "De Novo". That he received no response shows what a sham her "journal" is and how interested she is in receiving any valid criticisms (apparently she feels there are none) which is one of the mainstays of science.


He assumed contamination, even after being told they were careful about that. He ASSUMES, with no evidence other than that the results are unusual. She stated clearly that the samples were carefully gathered, and there was no contamination.

He had little choice but to reach a reasonable, parsimonious conclusion of what the results obviously indicated based on what he was presented with as she refused to submit either her methods or her work to the genuine scrutiny of the scientific community.


A bunch of students gathering on YT is not a credible source of validation or invalidation.

LOL.

You do realise what is required to become a "Ph.D student" in the first place (which can differ from country to country) which would usually require a degree at minimum and that it can take many years of rather demanding specialist research and thesis work to achieve? These are young scientists seeking advice from a Ph.D in Evolutionary Biology who does have direct experience in genome sequencing of certain species.

Not up to the standard of a Vet to you of course.


No; it's a perfect description of the academia of science that you believe is so credible. Anything that isn't wanted, or "accepted" is derided and mocked. Derision isn't part of the scientific method.

Not really. Science is tough (there is good reason for that) and doesn't always get it right.

Out of curiosity, from your own understanding as no doubt you wouldn't be a blind believer, perhaps you could give a basic rebuttal to these scientists?

There seems some good explanation for laymen from these people. Could you explain why this "hybridisation" proposal doesn't conflict with known genetics re biological evolution, or why David Winter might be unduly critical when he says it is obviously not a "homonid sequence" to begin with, or wonders where the rest of the genome is (lol), or why he feels the sequences could not have recombined in the time frame the paper claims (consistently with known hybridisation), why he might be nitpicking with his find that 60% of certain of the genetic sequences are unmatched to anything on earth etc. Could you, instead of sneering at them, successfully show why their claims are wrong?

If it showed an unknown species, scientists would agree. They don't think it does, they think it's nonsense.

edit on 23-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Here's a link to the Prof. Sykes paper. A very simple, clear and concise work. Have a look at note 4 in particular where he clearly cites the Ketchum study as invalid, the result of poor technique and misinterpreted results. So one of the world's most respected geneticists is also in on the conspiracy...?

As he certainly met with Meldrum what does it say also for his outlandish claims of having "everything else, but an actual bigfoot'? Wonder which bigfoot sample were the ones he advised Sykes about? Oh, hold on, he didn't find any bigfoots. Did Meldrum offer such a thing to Sykes? Or perhaps he just didn't think it relevant that a world respected geneticist was prepared to validate (or not) his claims and publish the results? It slipped his mind? Sounds about right.


As Sykes went to some effort to find the best samples and ended up with cow, horse, bear, dog, racoon, porcupine etc...from people who thought they had bigfoot samples...even from someone who claims to have shot bigfoot. Wouldn't that beg the question...how are people mistaking mundane creatures for bigfoot?

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...

edit on 23-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
Ketchum studied for 2yrs to gain her Doctorate


That was a typo and should have been "degree".



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
Just for fun, let's assume Bigfoot is real. A neanderthal primate undiscovered (technically) living in our national parks. Spying on campers as they sleep. Let's put all the hoaxing on the shelf for a moment and give the benefit of the doubt.
How full do you think your pants would get if this happened to you in the middle of nowhere?



The back story to this was he was apparently surround by about 5 BF as they strategically darted around him in the darkness. Breaking branches and generally just freaking him the F out.

I'm curious if he had voice analysis done on this video? It would be really hard to fake those growls in the background not to mention the fear in his voice.
I believe he has seen these creatures and the bigfoot world in all it's jealousy and wanting their 15 minutes of fame will call fake on anything on anyone who has succeeded in capturing bigfoot on video. I've never seen such poor behaviour in a group of people.
I don't believe he faked this or faked the other one in the op, bigfoot's aren't called the nija's of the forest for nothing.

after reading through most of the thread it sounds as though we have quite a few on here with an agenda! To bash anyone that has proved that this species is alive and well all over the world.
edit on 25-8-2014 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Took some time to see if I may have been unfair Barcs, still not seeing it. We might have to agree to disagree. This is obviously a quick bigfoot mocumentary for commercial reasons. While there's nothing wrong or even unusual in that (such shows can be entertaining), is sadly the only reason anyone seems to look into this subject. Nothing wrong with Standing's claims either, in a PT Barnum kind of way. But if your telling me this is genuine in what it does and portrays. No.

The segment descriptions are in keeping with overall theme. If you can find where Les has control over his project "except for marketing and how it is promoted" and further that he disagrees with it, that would be more convincing. Until then, it is undeniably there underneath his work in black and white.

The reasons he gives for choosing Standing don't sit too well themselves. He might find something compelling about the video (in the eye of the beholder after all). But to mention that unless it is real "he must have dedicated his life to a hoax" is irrelevant (not to mention exaggerated, possibly for effect). Yeah, bigfoot hoaxing is surely unheard of lol. Nowhere does he accurately portray the history of Standings' outrageous and unlikely "Sylvanic" claims. This is no different to looking at vid of fairies and implying it could be real because they put a lot of effort into it. Fairies are unlikely to be real, regardless. Emotional appeals are irrelevant and I'm not buying it because to put it that way is offering a type of false dilemma. It'll float or sink on it's merits alone.

The claim the bigfoot phenomena "requires scientifically based answers" could also be more convincing...if he didn't then proceed to spend two entire episodes providing not one scientifically based answer to anything, nor attempting to (apples lol?), despite having many opportunities to do exactly that.

Enlisting the help of "bigfoot tracker" and "bigfoot expert" Standing? No bs there obviously! If you have successfully tracked and verified exactly the same number of Leprechauns (ie. none) that would also make you a "Leprechaun tracker/expert"? Surely he did well to say that without chuckling?

It is also not really "enlisting the help of" as much as "basing the entire thing" on Standing's claims, possibly because he couldn't be @rsed really looking for bigfoot himself (for obvious reasons).

The "hunters" that you are happy to gloss over are more relevant than that. They are apparently what alerted Standing to claimed bigfoot activity and supposed "structures" in this specific area the first place and are somewhat central to the bigfoot communication idea. Yet we don't know whether this story is completely fabricated or whether such trappers exist.

"There is a story"...should begin... "We spoke to two trappers"...It might be worth consulting Krantz's lowering probability of truth regarding anecdotes.

The trappers might have laughed at how they fooled a gullible bigfooter. They might have said "wtf you talkin' 'bout bro?" They might have confirmed that there was something strange going on and that at least we know this much is correct, which is important. As it is, we don't even know if they exist.

If you're not prepared to do the most basic fact checking, you're not serious (unless you simply wish to throw together a quick bigfoot mocumentary) and such stories can be discarded entirely.


edit on 27-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Aug, 27 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Not really buying his appraisal of the tree damage/structure either. It seems based on a nothing other than a quizzical look around. Nothing really indicates anything more than this. That snow couldn't break a small tree beside a road (or so he says), so he can see where it would've required something big with powerful hands, is not the way to go. To notice a tree broken at about 12' and proclaim "that's not a Moose break" as if it means anything, isn't either. They do have explanation and there is an awful lot about such things that Les simply seems ignorant of.

It isn't necessary to fell a tree to have it pointing @arse up. Though it isn't that uncommon while doing this, it also happens naturally. They can break at different heights for many different reasons and pull other trees into strange configurations also. Some very strange things can and do happen this way.

There is never a time when an obviously human made stump, directly under a claimed "bigfoot structure" isn't relevant. It shows something very obvious regarding the area, at the least. The requisite measurements and genuine inspection can be made to determine how relevant, but it is never irrelevant. High def of a bigfoot making such a structure in the area would go closer to doing this. At any rate, there was never a genuine inspection shown.Fail.

It seems our "experts" were too busy marvelling at the "structure bigfoot made" to notice the "stump humans made" directly underneath it. Assuming otherwise requires just that, an assumption that contradicts what is shown. At any rate this has largely been discussed, no need bogging down in minutiae.

There isn't really anything to indicate something unaccountable by natural and human causes. This should have been made clear, as it was the point. It wasn't, obviously so it could leave open the "bigfoot" explanation. Les' claims of "knowing" what it couldn't have been amount to nothing more than his opinion stated as fact. Real experts rarely do this, but give probability based on genuine inspection and science, rather than discount things "factually" based on personal incredulity. This was possible to do and that it wasn't really attempted is all very consistent with amateurs who think they are experts being led by their own appeals to ignorance and bias. You tube is full of such bigfoot research. Fail.

The notion that if it was difficult for humans, so therefore wouldn't be difficult for (claimed) bigfoot, is faulty logic. Yeah, it's not like humans build intricate structures or anything...If you're saying "he didn't mean that....", disagree there also. He eventually claims that the evidence "strongly suggests that something that isn't rot...isn't the weather...and isn't humans...is causing this damage, but what?". As he also claims to "know" that it couldn't be created naturally, what do you think that might leave...in a show dedicated to bigfoot? Santa?

When you get to this stage, surely it is time to wonder if you really do have the requisite knowledge. "Expertness" isn't needed here, as much as the ability to realise when you aren't such a thing and consult someone who is.

The "disappearing apples" outlines this better than words ever could.

The claim that "the overwhelming evidence that Gigantopithecus exists, is hard to ignore" is a funny one. Of course it is when you realize the only evidence there is for Gigantopithecus shows clearly that it went extinct, probably in the late Pleistocene, on an entirely different continent. If he is talking about bigfoot, it is a massive exaggeration to say there is any genuine evidence at all. Then to conflate this with Gigantopithecus? That's the normal pseudo science of the hardcore believers, who love this sort of thing. Fail.

Would there be a real point to the sleep out? Hearing unknown noises isn't uncommon for an experienced camper, or even genuine biologists. If you want to know what is causing it, instead of sitting there looking mildly concerned, you would need to go and find what it is (or try) or use other methods to find out. If you think it's predator, it wouldn't really be unknown anyway. If the area is too dangerous this way, you probably shouldn't be there (especially alone) and this would be the opposite of a "survivalist". The only point to this would be to provide some mock drama. Fail.

So whether he is generally legit, which most people seem to agree that he is (and which I'm not doubting), it wasn't obvious here. It looks more like an agreement between two people to profit by providing a bit of entertainment. It might be better, as you and others say, if he went it alone.


edit on 27-8-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it





new topics
top topics
 
29
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join