It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Has Global Warming Killed The Yeti ?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


A video is not anecdotal evidence.

Rejecting evidence due to personal beliefs is called denial.




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


A video is not anecdotal evidence.

Rejecting evidence due to personal beliefs is called denial.


LOL.

This personifies the problems in this field.

Really, you think claims about a figure in a video is not "anecdotal" evidence? It is evidence that someone made a film. As to what the pixels might portray, yes, while ever that relies solely on claims it is anecdotal.

The only way it can be genuine evidence is if it allows for genuine scientific study. None have so far. In fact, they are usually worse than simple anecdotes because when accompanied by video, we get to see and usually laugh at it, instead of simply wondering what they might have experienced (or if they have).

A good hd video of a bigfoot backed with say, scat that can be conclusively evaluated, a skull perhaps, tracks that can be followed, refuse/middens...that would be more convincing.



edit on 4-12-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


You sound desperate to me. Your personal bias doesn't change the fact that video evidence is not anecdotal.

I'm sure you would dismiss any piece of evidence simply because it goes against your beliefs.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


You sound desperate to me. Your personal bias doesn't change the fact that video evidence is not anecdotal.

I'm sure you would dismiss any piece of evidence simply because it goes against your beliefs.





You sure seem to be sure of a lot of things. As well as quick to ad hominems.

If you are putting forward a yeti in the form of two dimensional pixels that offer nothing in the way of scientific evidence, what do you think it relies on (a claim that it is a yeti perhaps)?

If you are saying a yeti kidnapped you for a while and offer nothing in the way of scientific evidence, what do you think that relies on (a claim it was a yeti perhaps?).

They both offer evidence that relies on claims of people (anecdotes).



edit on 5-12-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Didn't mean to offend ya.

What it sounds like you are looking for is physical evidence. Videos are only visual evidence.

Check out: www.nabigfootsearch.com...

It's a website by David Paulides. He recovered about a dozen DNA samples from Bigfoot and had them analyzed.

Worth the look, if you really are curious and don't already have your mind made up.

I'm out. Have a good one.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

No problem at all intelligenthoodlum33 (I like your user name, by the way). I also understand what you mean and don't disagree, but I go more by the following. If it can't be verified scientifically (even if visual), but relies on personal testimony or claims to be accepted, it's anecdotal. Things like claimed footprints being also an anecdotal form of evidence ultimately (ie. they are evidence something left a footprint, not of what left them...the further idea that bigfoot did relies on someone's claim to that effect).



edit on 5-12-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: intelligenthoodlum33
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Didn't mean to offend ya.

What it sounds like you are looking for is physical evidence. Videos are only visual evidence.

Check out: www.nabigfootsearch.com...



The claims there are worded very ambiguously. Are they claiming 95% of the samples tested as human (what about the other 5%)? Or are they claiming the samples showed a 95% genetic similarity to humans?

Will results be published anywhere?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum


Well, it seems to be two different schools of thought about BF. Some think it's an undiscovered ape while the other thinks it's a type of humanoid.

Paulides is of the later school. He's done interviews with people from American Indian tribes and they believe it's another type of human with exceptional skills at hiding.

Supposedly they have their own civilization and customs. Which could be one of the reasons we don't find their bodies. Paulides has some interviews on YouTube. Interesting stuff.


PS- Intelligenthoodlum was a rapper from the early days of hip hop. Hattorihanzo was already taken.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

Thats what I mean about ambiguous.

If 95% tested as human, then 95% were human (what were the other 5%?)?

If they had a 95% similarity with human genetics, they would be about as close to humans as chimps are.

See Melba Ketchum is involved. Hope they learnt from last time and get someone qualified in evolutionary genetics to help her, if they are going to publish it.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

Look this thing is not human unless it is extremely old on the tree. Having seen it once and interacted or rather been stalked by it in another geographical local and upon hearing the scream it is beyond human in its physical capabilities.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: stabstab

Come on! You can't stop there. What happened? My girlfriend refuses to believe it exits, but I have no doubt, even though I've never seen it in person.

Would you mind giving more details about your encounter?




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join