King, North TX

That this thread is 'here', and not where originally posted is a form of "censorship", and I will be inactive until it is replaced. That is all.

YOU say it is a false equivalence, but I am arguing it is 'silly' not to trust eye witness accounts, especially when patterns and trends begin to emerge. Given your propensity for accuracy, I'd argue that you are likely NOT eating the best cereal you possibly could...or maybe you are? Again, if eye witness-empirically collected evidence is so poor, then why don't we run into things more? Clearly our vision serves us on a daily basis to successfully navigate yet you dismiss it without regard.

First...I had no idea there was a cryptozoology section, but that said, "I think moving this thread is both uncalled for and a manner of dismissal." This isn't about "Neanderthals", bigfoot, or the any other specific entity, but rather when it is acceptable to claim something extinct. To say the least, I do not fully appreciate this thread's removal. Look, what I don't get is why science disqualifies empirical evidence, sometimes. "People can misperceive." Indeed, we CAN...but DO we, so much so that "we" should not be trusted? How do you operate from day to day, then? If you were in the street and saw a bus headed toward you, would you not MOVE, so that it missed you? I personally find great folly in dismissing eye witness accounts, and my OWN eyes, but that's just me... Well, all that I can do is trust reputable journalists to cover this as they can...I haven't been in a field in decades.

Agreed...but the degree to which that variation occurs and 'changes' would have everything to do with varying environmental demands, right? Agreed, and I would argue that progress IS evolution.

You don't think living on another planet would have anything to do with our biological evolution??? EVERYTHING in a given environment, including the people in it drive one's evolution.

No... Human evolution continues. Olympic records continue to fall, our frontiers pushed further outward, colonization of Mars is but a generation away.

Are you claiming that we know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING...? Really? There are no mysteries, or unexplained periods or time utterly lost to history? I find that well beyond funny.

Have you not heard that 'we' have Neanderthal DNA in us...? Reversion to a more wild form, and selective breeding 'could' bring back Neanderthals...looking around I am not so sure this isn't a commonality. I think it further folly to pretend to know everything about Neanderthal behavior and nomadic capabilities...

I like to try to keep things simple. Instead of inventing bigfoot, it is far more simple to look to a KNOWN entity that has both ability and knowledge to hide their dead... I usually find that the simplest answer is the right one, herein maybe something we thought was extinct, isn't. Ages ago, their very survival depended on NOT being seen, detected, or they WOULD be hunted. I guess, all of the answers lay in who and what they are. Maybe they've learned to preserve food, scavenge off of other kills, or eat grubs and the like. I have no idea. I think hunter's game cameras, infrared, and night vision WILL be how we catch them...some believe we already have.

Eye witness testimony is not "invaluable"... If you were a field general, and a scout just returned with "visually collected" data on the approaching forces numbers and capability, what are you gonna do with that "empirically collected evidence" or "anecdote"...? Ignore it? Trust it? Would you ask questions about the reliability of the scout's previous reports? Would you drug test him, before trusting the data? So, you want a "pure" untainted by soil, sweat, rain, or other living organisms DNA sample of an unknown primate to be presented for review by you personally...sans that you stand in disbelief? Do you think you could make those goalposts any more narrow? I never took statistics, so my terminology may be off, but I know probabilities and reality often differ. Sightings happen in the same kind(s) of places, the world over.

Eye witnesses are not equal to one another, and should not be generalized. "No, Neanderthals exist." You said it yourself, it is "rare" but things do pop up...and "bigfoot" has been seen by all men throughout the ages, the world over... They spurred legend, cult followings, and have had an effect on our world...even spawning this exchange. We know black holes exist, not because we can see them, but because they have an affect on the things around them... Without FULLY exploring a known habitat, it would be folly to say you were "certain" about what exists and what doesn't.

"The climate is changing." "We've got a possibility of a snow tornado." ...Yup, that's what some weather person just said there is a possibility of... So that's not new, right? We've always had "snow tornados!?" When I was a kid, I lived almost dead center tornado alley, north central Texas. We had tornados drills aplenty and severe thunderstorms were commonplace. Now, according to the data, more actual tornados are occurring further east and north. I blogged about it once. But now there's talk of a snow tornado? That's a new one for me...

I've always thought of "God" AS the ever-expanding universe that is a set of unbreakable rules that guide all the moving bodies therein. We are just a drop of water in that every expanding sea of expanse... God isn't one thing, but rather everything, and how it works within itself.

My assertion here is that so many eye witnesses ARE "empirically collected data", that this data shows "patterns & trends" leaning TOWARD, not away from a "KNOWN" reality that science mistakenly snuffed out, without fully exploring a known habitat. Science FAILED to prove many things "extinct"...well a few anyway. "Contamination" by what...? I asked before, hoping you could explain "unknown DNA", as a 'contamination'? The problem with "probabilities" is that they don't always apply to reality. You MIGHT flip a coin 100 times, and it land on heads half the time, but it might not. This world is large enough for LOTS of stuff to hide...

Sorry, I got wrapped up in school work. 4-A's one B. SOB! In any case, you asked for a reference, because this is a science board and all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html But I suppose that really doesn't count. My point here is NOT that 'I' should have to prove anything, but that Science itself FAILED when it declared the Neanderthals extinct to begin with. Unless 100% of known habitat for said entity is eliminated, it is folly to say something is for sure extinct. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The giant red-headed woodpecker is but another recent example of science's failure is this regard. The DO have recent . But I am sure you'll say these videos could be faked, right?

Unless it is in a court of law... Therein empirically collected data IS evidence enough for us to justify killing our fellow man. Just say'n. Nah, it was just a rabbit I chased. UFO's 'could' be just earthly terrestrials, who ascended into the heavens ages ago...

Except these hundreds and thousands of sightings. Don't get me started on those... It took 'us', a mere 100 years to go from the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong. 100 years is a blink of the eye in the time Humanity has been on this planet. Are you suggesting that ONLY We, present day man, has been the ONLY 'thing' to have evolved here and ascended into the heavens??? That's pretty egotistical, buddy. Don't you know that the Earth has beget MANY civilizations, some crumbled into the seas ages ago, some 'up and left', while other simply perished to the winds of time. Those 'things', the unidentified images caught on so many radar towers, witnessed by thousands of pilots and police alike, ARE those 'Earthly ancestors' of ours who escaped and now live 'up there'...maybe. That to me seemed the simplest answer, 'that We are not all that special after all'... Have you ever seen the ruins of Puma Punku. Awesome Peoples have existed here, before we got here.

*Contaminated by "unknown DNA"...? You think it is more likely that hundreds of thousands of people throughout time were 'just imagining things'...? OR...that something has 'possibly' escaped the scientific record...?

Any thoughts on this story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html

Habitats can be both known and unexplored...the ocean for example. It is a pretty big entity, hiding stuff is pretty easy. Take a look at a nighttime map of North America, and a map of al the sightings that have occurred, and tell me you don't see a correlation. Neanderthal habitat never disappeared. Us having neanderthal DNA is meaningless, except that there could also be 'pure' neanderthals still roaming about, as the genesis of the wild man and bigfoot tales... IF they do indeed exist, they likely developed some sort of language and the ability to capture history, or at the very least they've collectively been able to avoid detection and capture, which 'demands' communication at high levels.

I wish I could breath water through my ass. A suit made of animal skin including a hood, would make something appear 'bigger' than it actually was... I KNOW that the plural of anecdote is not evidence. However, I again see folly is dismissing "empirical evidence" especially when sources are both accredited, reliable, AND report 'similar' details. If a police officer's testimony can convict you of murder, who can't they verify the existence of a bi-pedal hominid? Road kill? These thing would have had to survive us HUNTING them. They would identify human colonies as instant death, road ways especially. On the highway I travel most, I see armadillos, skunks, and the occasional deer. In 37 years I have never seen a mountain lion, dead on the highway...we've got them around here, but you don't usually 'see' them. I've never seen a dead bobcat on the road either. I almost never see dead snakes either. The ONLY way Neanderthal man could have survived was by being 'better' at staying hidden and on the run than Cro-Magnon was at hunting. It's the difference between Enkidu and Gilgamesh. There's plenty of room for wild men. Look at a nighttime map of North America, then overlay the sightings map... If there is unexplored habitat known to provide for all of that animal's needs, then indeed I think it is folly to assume "complete extinction". First, I believe that 'some' of neanderthals were assimilated, most were likely killed or were out competed for food and supplies, but that some could have escaped. The 'wild man' myth is global, timeless, and replete with eye witnesses, and because they know that our knowledge of them means death, they keep their dead very hidden. I can see a "WILL brake for ACTUAL Bigfoot" bumper sticker explosion...

Butt-breathing turtles...awesome. Neanderthals wore animal skins...you don't think tailored clothes would be a common adaptation? They AREN'T hiding from us completely...take a look at the sightings maps, the plaster casts of prints, the videos. We've got everything but bones and bodies.

All that we can study are 'known' populations...'known' habitats. It is pretty easy to appreciate extinct habitats, and thus extinct dinosaurs. I do however find folly in deciding something is extinct, when you have not fully explored known habitats. While I think that the likelihood of a population of plesiosaurs roaming the globe is slim, I think that a self-aware evolved humanoid living where they are not supposed to be is the most likely explanation for bigfoot sightings. Most of the time the simplest answer is the correct one. So, Neanderthals were the first to bury their dead...which explains why we find no bodies... What 'evidence' is there that Neanderthals no longer exist, anywhere? First, I've seen the biological count of the fish in Loch Ness. It is not possible to support a large predator or a population of them in that lake. If it is connected by an underwater cave to the ocean, all bets are off. If they live in the deep, and have developed gills, there is no way to know if they are or aren't still around. The fossil record is NOT, I repeat, it is NOT an accurate representation of all the species and density populations, period. To create a fossil that will last the ages and beyond, everything has to happen perfectly, and all of the right elements have to be present. Neanderthals WERE short, as were we once, but with diet and selective breeding, humans have too grown over the decades...or maybe neanderthals also wear costumes to alter their size? I mean if we killed off all the short stupid ones, wouldn't that leave the REALLY smart fast ones? In order to survive would they have chosen ONLY the smartest and most adept to breed? If you overlay the map of reported sightings, atop topographical maps, networks that utilize untouched forests and largely unoccupied areas appear... I don't fully appreciate your "invisible unicorns" argument. Unless, of course you have fossil evidence of such a thing? My argument here isn't for the fanciful, it is that claiming extinction, without complete habitat loss is likely a misstep.

Here's my problem with 'science' claiming something truly extinct..."absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." If you haven't been everywhere, at the same time, you should NOT conclude that something doesn't exist. If something HAS existed, as the plesiosaur has and as giagantolopithicus or neanderthal man has that 'might' be mistaken for the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. SAYING these things are extinct, and proving it, are two very different things. In fact, I don't think you really CAN prove something doesn't exist. So, I think the requirement for "proof" is ill-placed.

Our Earth is still 'not yet fully explored and occupied', so declaring something extinction is almost always a probability thing, right? Coelacanth were thought to be extinct, until one popped up in a fisherman's net, but this is an isolated incident, except that people are both hearing and seeing the giant red headed woodpecker. So with these and other examples readily available, why is cryptozoology so ill-respected respected in general? The question I'd really like an answer to is how would a layman prepare an argument for the non-extinction of anything, sans a body?