The Patterson Footage .....

[Deleted member 429137]

It is if you want to consider yourself an objective investigator of the phenomena.

If the publication itself is what determines for you what you will and will not consider, you're unashamedly biased and you rely on specific gatekeepers (journals) to permit you to entertain and scrutinize the evidence of a given phenomena. I don't have that problem. I can go outside of what the top journals admit to evaluate information.

I linked a paper written by a credentialed PhD. You can read it and decide for yourself if it contains any valid arguments/information, or you can use the publication as a reason to avoid even doing so at all. Your choice.

I'ts not the publication itself, it's the person's willingness to submit to scientific analysis. If that person is unwilling to -- and the only reason to be unwilling is that they're not doing proper science -- then what they write can be disregarded until they do produce something that will pass muster.

The system works: you submit your scientific findings for analysis and they either find logical flaws in your work or they don't. It these people really wanted to make some discoveries they would go through the scientific process and become some of the richest and the most well-known scientists of all time.

But they don't have the evidence to do that so they publish their bullshit on the internet.

There is literally no reason for me to pay any more attention to them than I pay to any other nutcase publishing wild claims on the internet. Just like I don't get legal advice from someone without a law degree, read about pancreatic extraction from someone who's not a medical professional or learn BJJ from someone with 1000 victories in underground fighting competitions.

 

[Kframe]

To this day, it has never been proven false. The numerous hoax claims have been discredited, and I believe it is legit.

Special effects professionals to this day say they can't make a suit that has muscle movement and hair placement as real as that footage.



I believe most of the Bigfoot videos out there are fake, but I believe the Patterson footage - which just so happens to be the most famous - does show a unique animal. I believe Bigfoot may no longer exist, but faded out - but that Patterson and Gimlin caught one of them on video. I hope this thread evolves into solid debate from both sides, with good evidence being brought fourth.

Oh look, more bullshit. Why are we rehashing this anti science crap. 15million humans go hunting in the USA every year with high powered rifles, the fact that not once of these fake, phony, non existent things has been shot and brought in by at least one of them proves them false. There is more proof that black bears returning to Indiana then there is of this thing..

 

[Kframe]

Hollywood today cannot do eh? That sounds legit.

Edit. This sounded like I supported the Op. Since I don't want to do that I am deleting this. Fuck him and fuck this fake, antiscience bullshit.

 

[BearGrounds]

I'ts not the publication itself, it's the person's willingness to submit to scientific analysis. If that person is unwilling to -- and the only reason to be unwilling is that they're not doing proper science -- then what they write can be disregarded until they do produce something that will pass muster.

The system works: you submit your scientific findings for analysis and they either find logical flaws in your work or they don't. It these people really wanted to make some discoveries they would go through the scientific process and become some of the richest and the most well-known scientists of all time.

But they don't have the evidence to do that so they publish their bullshit on the internet.

There is literally no reason for me to pay any more attention to them than I pay to any other nutcase publishing wild claims on the internet. Just like I don't get legal advice from someone without a law degree, read about pancreatic extraction from someone who's not a medical professional or learn BJJ from someone with 1000 victories in underground fighting competitions.

Lol yada yada ya. That's a lot of rationalizing you're doing there in order to justify your bias as well as work your way out of reading a published paper by a credentialed PhD, made available for scrutiny, on the very topic we're here discussing.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Lol yada yada ya. That's a lot of rationalizing you're doing there in order to justify your bias as well as work your way out of reading a published paper by a credentialed PhD, made available for scrutiny, on the very topic we're here discussing.

I need to rationalize why I'm not reading work by someone who is avoiding scientific scrutiny and publishing directly to the cranks?

Not sure you know what a bias is. (pro-tip: common sense is not a bias; begging someone to pretend bullshit can be just as relevent as scientific data is a bias)

 

[Anung Un Rama]

What is this showing?

It's a steadied version of the original

 

[00 Buck]

I liked this thread. Going to do more research. I also have heard a theory that Bigfoot is actually of alien origin hence the reason we don't see them. They aren't of this world or are perhaps the hyper intelligent alien species which created us and are why we are similar and ape like.

Not gonna lie, I've entertained this thought.

IMO at the very least they are almost human in intelligence, and notice people way before we notice them, in their element.

Too many stories of them from unconnected tribes to ignore. Supposedly Daniel Boone shot one. Called it a yahoo.

Many many tales of encounters in the era of muskets. Before patterson, even before the existence of gorillas are known.

 

[BearGrounds]

I need to rationalize why I'm not reading work by someone who is avoiding scientific scrutiny and publishing directly to the cranks?

Not sure you know what a bias is. (pro-tip: common sense is not a bias; begging someone to pretend bullshit can be just as relevent as scientific data is a bias)

Not sure you even know you're biased, but you're dripping with it. You were given a paper made available for scrutiny, and refused to scrutinize it or even read it for yourself, based on the nature of the journal it was published in. You're disparaging it without examining it directly, yet speak as if you're well informed. You're a not a very good researcher.

Lol. And with that....

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Not sure you even know you're biased, but you're dripping with it. You were given a paper made available for scrutiny, and refused to scrutinize it or even read it for yourself, based on the nature of the journal it was published in. You're disparaging it without examining it directly, yet speak as if you're well informed. You're a not a very good researcher.

Lol. And with that....

I'm not a researcher. I'm someone pointing out to you that you're being deliberately ignorant on this topic. I don't need to read a fringe paper on bigfoot to point out the flaws in your thinking.

 

[BearGrounds]

I'm not a researcher. I'm someone pointing out to you that you're being deliberately ignorant on this topic. I don't need to read a fringe paper on bigfoot to point out the flaws in your thinking.

Lol says the guy refusing to read about that which he's disparaging. Comedy.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Lol says the guy refusing to read about that which he's disparaging. Comedy.

Nothing inside her paper will change the fact that she's refusing to subject it to scientific scrutiny. Through this method it's quite easy for me to distinguish crank from scientist without reading every crank paper on the web. It's almost like this is why we have the study of science...

 

[Capt Lunatic]

For about 10-15 years almost every man, woman and child has had a recording device on them.
Result = People talking about a 50 year old shitty shaky cam of a dude in a gorilla suit.

 

[franklinstower]

There is a side discussion about bigfoot going on in this thread. TS- would you mind if that portion of the thread were merged with yours?

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/t...tural-is-there.3609787/page-14#post-133567247

 

[franklinstower]

Stupid title -- not proof of anything.






Interesting as I have seen these in the woods at times and wondered about them. Problem is that now people will certainly start hoaxing them.

 

[franklinstower]

Nothing inside her paper will change the fact that she's refusing to subject it to scientific scrutiny. Through this method it's quite easy for me to distinguish crank from scientist without reading every crank paper on the web. It's almost like this is why we have the study of science...

I dont know man. I think you have to read it or at least research why she isn't submitting it for peer review before making a decision. Has she had bad experiences with peer review in that past? slanderous experiences perhaps?

Having total faith in the peer review process is not warranted based on evidence. It does seem to me to be reasonable that some researchers of fringe topics that have a ton of stigma attached to them would be wary of the peer review topic.

I think you have already been exposed to the serious problems to do with peer review but here is a very interesting short article stating the varied problems. Not the least of the problems facing the whole subject of peer review is that some scientists themselves state that the peer review process itself is done in an unscientific way..... that it wont survive scientific scrutiny......

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I dont know man. I think you have to read it or at least research why she isn't submitting it for peer review before making a decision. Has she had bad experiences with peer review in that past? slanderous experiences perhaps?

This entire thread has been about whether or not there's proof of the supernatural and you and @BearGrounds are telling me to read this fringe scientist who is sitting on proof bigfoot exists. It sounds like proof does not exist.

Having total faith in the peer review process is not warranted based on evidence. It does seem to me to be reasonable that some researchers of fringe topics that have a ton of stigma attached to them would be wary of the peer review topic.

I think you have already been exposed to the serious problems to do with peer review but here is a very interesting short article stating the varied problems. Not the least of the problems facing the whole subject of peer review is that some scientists themselves state that the peer review process itself is done in an unscientific way..... that it wont survive scientific scrutiny......

https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

That stigma is totally deserved, btw. It is perfectly reasonable to have trepidation in approaching a field full of charatans and con-artists.

And I have read that article. What it says is that several important papers were rejected several times before getting published and some were published in journals that, in hindsight, were lower-tier than they deserved.

How does that article apply to this woman?

 

[Brom Bones]

To anyone with common sense: Don't even try to argue with these people. In fact, arguing will only strengthen their resolve. Just laugh at how gullible they are.

 

[sloppypie]

lol this is some of the dumbest shit ever. Almost as dumb as flat earthers.

It would be awesome if there were Bigfoot creatures out there, but you gotta live in reality man. Don't be a sucker to another mans con.

 

[Vil7]

That gorilla just got cucked.

 

[franklinstower]

This entire thread has been about whether or not there's proof of the supernatural and you and @BearGrounds are telling me to read this fringe scientist who is sitting on proof bigfoot exists. It sounds like proof does not exist.



That stigma is totally deserved, btw. It is perfectly reasonable to have trepidation in approaching a field full of charatans and con-artists.

And I have read that article. What it says is that several important papers were rejected several times before getting published and some were published in journals that, in hindsight, were lower-tier than they deserved.

How does that article apply to this woman?

That article says WAY more than that man.

There are serious enough problems with peer review that you cant discount something JUST because its not peer reviewed.

I haven't read the proof in question and am not arguing for it. I do question how you can vehemently deny and mock the veracity of claims made in a work you haven't read though.

Why not.just read it and see? If you WONT read it then why come out so negatively about it? That seems unscientific to me.