Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Ars] Bigfoot genome paper “conclusively proves” that Sasquatch is real
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Ars] Bigfoot genome paper “conclusively proves” that Sasquatch is real - Page 14  

post #131 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Stanjam = Bruennis ?

That's not what I implied at all. I know you didn't say that, but that's how we got on this topic.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 920 SABERTOOTH X58 Gigabyte GTX 970 Corsair  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
WD 320GB WD 1TB Hitachi 1TB CM Hyper 212 Plus 
OSMonitorMonitorPower
Windows 10 Pro 24" Sceptre 20" Asus Corsair TX750 
Case
Antec 1200 
  hide details  
post #132 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by 78@pwnt4lif3 View Post

Did you guys forget that Bigfoot has been sighted back in 1800's and earlier and there were no technology access during that time? Why else there a documentation on that then? Clearly shows you that we still haven't discovered everything on Earth. Keep an open mind. Same way you're saying you don't believe space has life forms out there. Well you're wrong cuz there is life out there. The universe is a big place and so is this Earth.

I believe it was Steven Hawking that said, "it is statistically probable life outside Earth exists." - that doesn't mean its confirmed. it means based off our understanding of the universe, the vast amount of planets, suns, solar systems, and galaxies, it is statistically probable life exists outside our planet, and for that matter solar system. that doesn't mean life is confirmed to exist outside of our planet, why? Because we have no tangible proof it does.

In regards to the topic at hand, the "stats" we see / hear / read about Bigfoot, is extremely volatile, meaning a person can say Bigfoot exists, just and easy as the next person saying Bigfoot does not exist, based off the exact same "evidence."

I am not going to pay to read the journal, but my money is on, the authors probably did something to the nature of my above statement.

an example is
Scientist 1: "it's not white with black stripes it's black with white stripes."
Scientist 2: "its not black with white stripes, it's white with black stripes."
post #133 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huzzbutt View Post

But seriously you're trying to contend that bigfoot exists on an internet forum?
uneccessary namecalling, you have no idea of how old the rest of the participants in discussion is, Nor do you know anything of our background.
I and my in tis discussion has opposed the lack of scientific evidence presented and the lack of scientific method in the way the unscientific evidence was presented. This does not require a degree or tenure, it requires familiarity with higher education.

Suggesting that we keep an open mind is contending that Bigfoot exists? Go back and reread my posts and quote the one(s) where I stated with conviction that Sasquatch exists
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huzzbutt View Post

1. Who is credible and is of any importance, you need... Citation!
2. Oral tradition as a source is generally a bad idea, some times you might strike gold but most of the time the stories have been exagerrated or transformed to please the audience. myths does not constitute evidence nor do they hold water unless they are proven to be true, but a myth can't be proven by the myth alone.

1. There are a dozen-plus claims/statements in this thread that need citation. It's ridiculous that you and a few others continue to police me for proof on the subject of Bigfoot when I have made no such claim that the creature for sure exists

Les Stroud? It was intended to be an open question. The existence of Bigfoot in and of itself is an open-question argument because the evidence put forth by the science community isn't compelling enough to make a scientific case.
2. Agreed but these lackluster forms of evidence is all we got hence why I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

At the end of the day, we are all going to need hard-nosed definite proof meaning a bona fide body or carcass on a slab for any of us including myself to accept the existence of Sasquatch.

Contending that Bigfoot exists?
post #134 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Suggesting that we keep an open mind is contending that Bigfoot exists? Go back and reread my posts and quote the one(s) where I stated with conviction that Sasquatch exists
1. There are a dozen-plus claims/statements in this thread that need citation. It's ridiculous that you and a few others continue to police me for proof on the subject of Bigfoot when I have made no such claim that the creature for sure exists

Sure there's a lot of dodgy statements, thats why citations are needed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Les Stroud? It was intended to be an open question. The existence of Bigfoot in and of itself is an open-question argument because the evidence put forth by the science community isn't compelling enough to make a scientific case.

Survival instructor/musician/filmmaker?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

2. Agreed but these lackluster forms of evidence is all we got hence why I wrote:
Contending that Bigfoot exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Pseudoscience like plate tectonics and atoms?
Fairies and unicorns have no biological support unless horses can grow cutaneous horns much like humans can.

Attempting to make the concept of Bigfoot look more reasonable than the "competition"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

We're talking Cryptozoology here... there are no legitimate sources to solidify our stance and is entirely up to our own judgement. As a scientist, surely, you aren't honestly ruling out the existence of Sasquatch or even Cadborosaurus Willsi? But perhaps setting it somewhere in the gray, somewhere in the unknown.

Arguing the possibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

I'm not the scientist here... You are (Supposedly)... We await the truth from smarties like yourself. Till then I'm fine with my own conclusions thumb.gif

So what is your "conclusion" in this case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how difficult it was to prove the existence of atoms without the technology readily available? We're talking about a theory that was originally postulated 2000+ years ago and wasn't quite understood until Dalton came and proposed the Atomic theory. Even then it had to endure scrutiny.
There are evidence supporting Bigfoot just not the tangible kind. Do you think people from different cultures and different parts of the world came together one day and decided to carry out arguably the biggest prank of all time - the Bigfoot phenomenon?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not suggesting Bigfoot is real but keep an open mind. The magnitude of witnesses from all over the world is simply to great to say that the Bigfoot phenomenon is make-believe. Disparaging such a notion and comparing it to elves, unicorns, and phoenixes is just plain ignorant.

This one is quite dodgy but since you rate big foot as more "real" than pixies I'm gonna go with it, that and the fact that you say:
Quote:
"There are evidence supporting Bigfoot just not the tangible kind. Do you think people from different cultures and different parts of the world came together one day and decided to carry out arguably the biggest prank of all time - the Bigfoot phenomenon?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruennis View Post

Why the hell not?
 
Rebeccas Dator
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K Asus P8P67 Pro  6950 DCII G.skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 330 Seagate Barracuda WD Green OCZ Vertex 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
H212 W7 21.5 Sidewinder x4/Lenovo with Trackpoint 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 900w Define r2 MX518 Qpad 1.5mm 
Audio
Edifier R1900TII 2.0 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
II X4 965 Gigabyte GA-MA785GMT-UD2H Sapphire 5770 DDR3 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gb DVD H212 windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
3x Benq 21.5 inch X4 chieftec 650w Define mini 
Mouse
mx518 
  hide details  
 
Rebeccas Dator
(14 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I5 2500K Asus P8P67 Pro  6950 DCII G.skill 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Intel 330 Seagate Barracuda WD Green OCZ Vertex 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
H212 W7 21.5 Sidewinder x4/Lenovo with Trackpoint 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Antec 900w Define r2 MX518 Qpad 1.5mm 
Audio
Edifier R1900TII 2.0 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
II X4 965 Gigabyte GA-MA785GMT-UD2H Sapphire 5770 DDR3 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
2x 500gb DVD H212 windows 7 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
3x Benq 21.5 inch X4 chieftec 650w Define mini 
Mouse
mx518 
  hide details  
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Ars] Bigfoot genome paper “conclusively proves” that Sasquatch is real