mooeypoo

Everybody? I can't. It's flat. I'm not the only one who can't, either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXQSmD2HWFE It's not only about being flat, or about having no toes, it's about the WAY IT IS BUILT. Look at the videos above, they make very good points. Another point you should consider is that no matter how rare this animal supposedly is, there is no chance in hell that every time someone spots it, a scientist particularly, it results only with far, blurry, unclear images or videos. That makes no sense, unless it's either a hoax. Also, a scientist that proves bigfoot exists; or, for that matter, that will find and catalog an entirely new species, will win such high prestige and recognition (and prizes, and money) that there's no logic in thinking scientists are just 'not interested'. If there were actual proofs to convince anyone that there's even a POINT to start hunting down bigfoot, the entirescientific community that even REMOTELY touches biology and speciation would go. And stop ignoring what you don't want to answer. There has been questions that were raised for your consideration, and instead of answering, you again posted video. So fine, we'll comment on the videos (you know, a simple google search about the SCIENCE behind this would solve your video needs but.. fine..) but YOU stop trolling and nitpicking what you would LIKE to answer, and start dealing with *all* of our questions. That's not evidence, it's interpretative explanation. Evidence would be a skeleton, or a bone structure, or a part of a heel bone. See our problem here? btw, one last thing here -- the fact you chose to relate to "Science" as a thing (?) and seemingly to remove yourself from it ("they.." "by their own people"... ""they choose"... "their pre-conceived notions", etc) raises a serious question: Are you in the right place? You are in a science forums. We are open minded, but we go by the scientific method and demand rigorous proof before we accept theories, be it bigfoot, the pink unicorn or the LHC blowing up the world. If you think that bigfoot is out of the realm of science, or if you dislike "science" so much, and our quest for EVIDENCE (ahem) so much, then I must ask you to consider if you're in the right forum. We will not just accept what you say on the basis of blurry films (that CAN easily be faked) and fantastic assumptions. If you're willing to stand up for your theory with some proof, I will be more than happy to debate this. The ball is in your hands.

You haven't answered his claims, though.

I noticed that the site is receiving quite a lot of traffic for the past few days from a site called theflatearthsociety.org ... apparently, they do still exist (isn't that cute?) and they're discussing my "the earth is not flat" post! Check it out here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23120.msg480940 Check out their reasoning, too.. I was curious to see if I should, perhaps, correct myself or be more specific, but apparently their problems with what they call the "REers" ("Round Earthers"?) is not about the logic. Go figure.

hmmmmm... interesting. Okay, I need to practice that to get used to it. Thanks

Yes but what happens when you have (kx-a) ? My professor actually solved that in class, but it's not next to me. I'll post the solution tomorrow, it's answering - apparently - another form of this equation.

There's a difference between invisible and hard to see, or invisible and invisible to the naked eye, or invisible and see-through. Invisible is invisible, and its color doesn't matter. Because it's invisible.

Yes, please do, I know I've been joking and funny about this, but it really is annoying. We are a science forum, and as such, we have the requirements of a scientific thinking and refering, SPECIFICALLY in a thread like this. Please provide references to prove your tidbits, or don't post them at all. Beyond the fact that copy/paste without sourcing is plagiarism, if you post a statement that has no references, it might be a FALSE statement, in which case it should not be in the "Cool Facts" thread, but rather in the "I wonder if it's true" thread. ~moo

"Grrrrr" ? You do remember you're in a science forums, and not a fantasy forum, right? We are quite vigorous when it comes down to our peer review, as we should be. Perhaps you should re-read the rules of the forum. -- Okay, wvbig, here's an analogy for you. Case study: I hear noises in the middle of the night almost every day, at weird intervals. They sound inhuman and weird. Sometimes things just fall off the shelves and break on the floor whenever, with absolutely no visible cause. Food disappears from my pantry, and I find empty - or semi empty - bags on the floor either in or out of the pantry. My windows rattle when it's windy outside. When my lights went out the other day, I could swear I heard foot steps in my apartment. When the lights came back up, I heard chewing sounds.. I walked over to my living room and as I was about to look at the cabinet, there was an awful noise and books just fell out of the top shelf. This warrants further investigation, indeed. I conclude that there is a strong indication of a ghost in my apartment. I panic. I start believing in ghosts and go see a medium to send it out. My friend comes over, checkes the pantry, and finds a rat. What you did in the previous posts, my friend, is taken a series of events (some of them unrelated), decided they weren't investigated (which is false; I know of at least three "bigfoot investigators" that gave answers to many of these so-called 'proofs'), and stated that the conclusion is that Bigfoot exists. The range of possibilities for whatever is causing these series of alleged 'weird things' that you posted is bigger than just Bigfoot. It can go from El Chupacabra to kids playing a hoax, to little green aliens who molest cows. Bigfoot is not the only "logical" conclusion out of what you presented. It's just YOUR conclusion. Which is why you need to supply evidence, and why just stating weird things that happen does not make your Bigfoot hypothesis any more logical. At all. There is such a thing as Occham's Razor, which states that in the case that there are 2 competing theories, both fitting the environment and situation, the simple one is probably true. Unless there is evidence - EVIDENCE - to prove otherwise. Note: Not hypothesis, EVIDENCE. Weirdass things happen that I can't explain. Option #1: An animal no one has seen for millenia, cannot be caught properly or like any other animal, acts and behaves inconsistently and in manners that are different than any other animals, but is stupid enough to be caught on camera numerous times. No bones were found of it, though its existence is hypothesized for at least a hundred years and more, and no other physical evidence exists. Option #2: A nice fantastical story, like that of the unicorn, taken advantage of for fame and money. In other words: Hoax. You tell me.

Is this doen on purpose in the mechanical deboning process or is this a good byproduct? How much does it affect it btw? doesn't sound like a whole lot of bone dust will get into the meat like that, and wouldn't it be washed off when the meat is later on treated?

I hate sums. Wait, I think I can be a bit more accurate.. oh, yes: I hate sums. meh. Now that I got that off my chest, I must be a real nag and ask how do I transfer a sum of i with no end (infinity?) to an integral between infinity and infinity. Do excuse me, these things are awefully new.. and I hate sums. And groups. Ew. ~moo

This is actually against the rules, as it's leading to an external site (promotion, promotion, admoney?) Post your proof, or at the very least give BASIC substantiation to your claim. Consider you're not the first one to claim such a thing, and that we do hold some high standards for the logic and scientific method that is posted. Good luck.

And as I have stated countless times, it's not enough that you SAY so. Post a reference. You don't have to post a million, if there are millions. All you need to do is post ONE reference for each claim you make. If the reference is scientific (hence, it's not subjective, it's a repeatable experiment, it's a substantiated observation, etc etc), then you're good.. if it's not, you would have to look for another one. It's not our responsibility to look up proofs for you, and it's not our habit to just believe claims out of thin air. Reference your claims and take charge of the debate.

btw, whenever you have a limit that ends with 0/0 or inf/inf, you need to simplify it (use L'hopital rule or anything else to continue). 0/0 for limit is meaningless. Or.. uhm.. correct me if I'm wrong? that's the way I studied it, and that's what jumped right away when I first saw the post. So I'm not quite sure how I would continue this limit, but I wouldn't settle if it ended like that..

I have to evaluate a few integrals with the dirac delta in them. So far, I got all of them (hopefully right), but I am stuck at the last one, mixing the two methods of the (kx) and (x-a)... help? here it is: [math] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \ln x \delta (1-2x), dx [/math] (couldn't find dirac-delta sign in LaTeX, settling for a simple delta) Anyhoo, I figured that the trick is to mentally switch this 'around' so it resembles the basic formula with a kx instead of x: [math] \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \ln x \delta (-2x+1), dx [/math] So, if I only had -2, I know that the expression of the Dirac Delta equals [math] \delta (-2x)=\frac{1}{|-2|} \delta (x) [/math] But I don't have it in that format, I have an "extra" +1 there, and I'm not sure I can remove the -2 if I have that (and can't find anything about it).. Anyone? Help? Thanks! ~moo

If not the animal itself, then bones. Poop. Bite marks. Dead animals with their heads bitten off... anything....

I'll settle with two *real* evidences. How's that? About your other point, I think we're getting somewhere finally. You don'tknow what the requirements are of identifying a new species -- that's a great question. Let's first find them out, and then we know what we would need to formulate in order to see if bigfoot exists. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species Continue to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification Then, after you get the basic principles, go on to do more research on this if you want, in actual *real* scientific resources (wikipedia is good for a rough and simple start). Then and only then can we go on to formulate what type of evidence you need to supply to prove that there is, indeed, a completely separate and new species called Bigfoot. I can assure you, though, that the method of finding them does *not* require just putting a unique food. People got them on cam, did they not? Plucking a damn hair from it should NOT be that difficult. I could shoot (and hit) a tranquilizer gun on that blurry animal while standing next to the camera, then I'd have all teh proof in the world, wouldn't I.. but why wasn't that done? It's illogical to think that this animal is absolutely and completely illusive.

Okay back up back up. YOU made a statement. YOU have the burden of proof. Whatever is or isn't proven on an entirely unrelated statement has absolutely no bearing on the FACT that YOU can't prove anything you stated. while YOU hold the burden of proof because YOU made that statement in the first place in this thread. Own up to it and stop jumping on every opportunity to argue a completely unrelated point; the POINT is that you stated something that is unproven and ignored your burden of proof, and you now try to use another issue to try and move the responsibility of proof over. It won't work, and it doesn't work. Bigfoot is bunk. Wanna prove it? PROVE BIGFOOT. Disproving anything else will only show that whatever else might be false, not that Bigfoot is true. Read some about the scientific method, will ya? We're a *SCIENCE* forum, which you have chosen to post in. Ii would assume you'd read the rules and expectations. ~moo

<sigh>

I think you should read the resource again; their judgements are not too much up for interpretation. What you "THINK" they used is irrelevant. Other than that, you're moving the goal post now; you're practically saying that the type of evidence for one subject is insufficient, but the same type of evidence is sufficient for another. That's another logical fallacy. But eye wittness reports, as well as anecdotal evidence, are non proofs, so there we have it, eh? Who? And again, even if they are, the validity of what they are saying should be judged on the basis of the *FACTUAL DATA* and not on the basis of their schooling or titles. The latter is appeal for authority, and it's utterly irrelevant in a scientific debate. In fact, as some creationist biologists prove quite well, claims that are based on non-science are likely to DISCREDIT a 'scientist' than to attain validity just because the person claiming them is a scientist. Look at people like Michael Behe. Scientist or no, he has no clue about current science, about attaining facts vs. opinion, or about the scientific method in general. His claims about "irriducible complexity", for example (proven wrong numerous times, including in court), serve well to take AWAY from his credibility, not the other way around. You claim these things but where are the proofs? Where are the resources to articles scientifically validating these films? Where are the scientific research in the matter - following the scientific method? I posted an article for you in the beginning, I think you better visit it again; the scientific method is not just there to put things in order, it's there to make sure we follow FACTUAL data and not biased opinions and interpretations.

Another point to share here - the term "Scientists" is too broad to be any sort of proof or substantiation. A person with a PhD in Applied Mathematics, researching some weird component of variable stars, is, technically, a scientist. That doesn't mean he has any authority on biological entities in the woods. A person with a Medical Degree (Doctor, MD), working in research (or not, arguably) is, technically, a scientist. That doesn't mean he has any authority on stating the validity of video footage. See my point? The fact someone is doing science doesn't mean he knows everything, is an authority to everything, or is an authority on this specific debate. Other than that, claiming someone's right just because he's a "scientists" is appeal to authority, and is logically fallacious. Scientist or not, claims should be accompanied by independent facts and repeatable, unbiased observations, which in this case are absolutely nonexistent. ~moo

Since iNow pointed out moo's statistics in requesting references, moo has tried to bite her tongue 9 times. She's currently shaking, sweating and muttering uncontrollably. Sad, really. References, plea-- oh, the relief!

We've answered on the video you've given on other forum threads. The video is not proof, as it can be faked (and it looks fake), and the "supporting" evidence are anecdotal. That's not proof. It might have been supporting-evidence (not enough to prove a theory) if it was higher quality and had MORE supporting evidence to it, but far far far from enough to prove such a theory. Perhaps this will help: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html One observation of an unknown animal (even if proven to be true, hence even if the video is not fake) is not enough to conclude that the animal in the video is bigfoot, and it's far from enough to conclude that bigfoot exists. Following the scientific method. That's what we want. ~moo

We're not asking for much, wvbig, we're asking for proof. The burden of proof is on you because you are suggesting this theory; so live up to it and supply some, otherwise the discussion is quite vain.

I suggest you run a search about bigfoot in the forums; we've already dealt with this (and I believe this ACTUAL VIDEO) before, in length. We do every few weeks, it seems. Short story long: It's bunk. The evidence are either incredibly unfounded, extremely bad, untrustworthy or anecdotal. That, in conjunction with the fact that biology and evolution stands slightly against this "conspiracy theory", makes the odds against this 'theory' even bigger. But again - I'm quite open minded. Everything I've seen in this reinstate the conclusion that it's bunk, but if you want to read through what we've already answered and post anything NEW I'll be happy to examine it. ~moo

It's hard to discuss this matter without the proper evidence. In short, just saying "There are evidence" is not enough. You need to provide them, so we can go over them and see if they are valid or not. If there ARE evidence, then your case is made, isn't it? The rest of what you're claiming is either anecdotal or nonproven. We need proofs to continue properly. Post evidence, please, so we can go on. ~moo