Did The Sasquatch People Make These Megalithic Carvings?
Wow! For the untrained eye, you'll probably never notice this. YouTuber Sasquatch BC claims to have noticed these "megalithic carvings" about 7 years ago. He writes: "I found these ancient Megalithic Carvings in the mountainsides about 7 years ago. I finally had a chance to return and attempt a new Expedition to locate a route that would take us in closer... but things take an interesting turn. I was originally here all those years ago searching for the Sasquatch people but found something else amazing. Now I'm finding a new connection between our Sasquatch Hominid brothers and Civilizations' distant past."
Suck it, Peggy/AC/Turd boy!!!
ReplyDeleteHa ha ha ha ha ha!!!
DeleteSave the leftovers for Joe.
Deletebigfoots build fires, cook meats, buried their dead, and makes maps!
DeleteTRAPPER and WILD BILL proven that!
I think those are natural shapes in the rock. The bottom edge of the supposed spread wings looks like natural strata in the rock. They need to get a lot closer to see if there is any unnatural details.
DeleteI think those are natural shapes in the rock. The bottom edge of the supposed spread wings looks like natural strata in the rock. They need to get a lot closer to see if there is any unnatural details.
DeleteNope. Bigfoot dont exist.
ReplyDeleteBOBO from Finding Bigfoot said he seen them while he been in da bush
DeleteThis is actually an interesting question. I’m not sure how a scientist would answer it, but here is my take:
ReplyDeleteThe main argument is from the null hypothesis. One must start with the idea that there is no such thing as a giant ape in the woods of North America.
Since no one has come forth with any evidence, other than campfire stories, there is no reason to conclude anything other than that there is still no such thing.
There is no arbitrary moment when one must stop looking. A few romantics might want to keep looking long after others have given up, but the null hypothesis has not been falsified.
The idea that “we’ve looked long enough” is only another subjective argument to help those who don’t understand the null and how it pertains to bigfoot. So yes, it is, as you say, simply an informal argument.
It is not needed, however. No argument is needed, because there is no evidence. From the moment the idea was proposed, the correct position has been that there is no giant ape living in North America. Until proven otherwise, it is still the correct position.
The proposition that unknown primate traits DO NOT EXIST in sources of evidence is clearly falsifiable. If you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove a positive statement; that unknown primate traits in sources of evidence do exist. The level of evidence required to prove the unknown primate traits are a biological reality are the species traits in question, by testing it with long standing fields of biological/forensic science. The proposition that unknown primate traits DO EXIST can therefore be falsified, because if you are attempting to falsify that proposition, you are attempting to prove the antithesis of that claim with the same methods to which support it; and show that these traits are not biological and do not exist.
DeletePhysical evidence in dermals =
there are ways of testing this, notably forensics against casting artefacts.
Biological evidence in unknown primate hair = there are ways of testing this, notably primatology and field biology in comparing against known primates' morphology.
Audio = there are ways of testing this, audiology fields that can show that these sounds are within the range of a normal human.
The sources in question are not negative and if data exists then it can be scientifically tested, therefore requiring no assumptions on it's existence either way. In the possible conclusions; you either have confirmed evidence for an unknown primate, or you don’t… What the positive ramifications mean, is that you don’t have a conclusive means of classifying what that primate is, but you still have the evidence for an unknown primate that has been falsifiably tested.
...Iktomi is saying, I think, that you have to prove that the purported evidence is yielding a false positive...brass tacks...
DeleteWell, kinda the right idea. Except in science the null is usually a negative statement, or one of no difference, e.g., there is no difference in the mean height of tree A vs tree B. It is then paired with an alternative hypothesis stated opposite of the null, e.g., mean height of tree species A is than mean height of tree species B. Then having stated an alternative, one makes predictions that if the hypothesis is true (bigfoot exists), we would predict: 1) to find spoor (droppings, footprints, hair) indicating its presence, 2) find dead specimens (road kill), 3) actual visual evidence of the creature.
DeleteTHe difficulty is achieving Independent confirmation: is that fuzzy picture real or a monkey in a man suit.
As a scientist myself, points 1 and 2 have gone lacking. No dead bodies, and no one appears to be able to ID fake from real tracks every time, all the time. Further, we haven't captured a bigfoot, and most if not all of the photographs /videos are questionable. Only the PG film, and maybe the Freeman footage stands out as credible. No one has been successful in falsifying the PG film by producing the monkey suite, or reproducing the monkey suit using materials of the late 1960's. But the PG film in terms of scientific evidence of existence, will not be enough.
One last point: science never proves anything. In science, hypotheses stand or fall on the the basis of objective falsifiability.
For what its worth.
..Very informative post...thanks..
Delete^ The cement is strong in this one!
ReplyDeleteGet a specimen folks. Otherwise, shut up.
ReplyDelete...The null hypothesis , H naught(H sub 0 or H_o), simply means the initial hypothesis..I.e the hypothesis you want to test..It does not mean that the hypothesis has to be a "not" or negative statement...The alternative hypothesis are the H_1, H_2..etc....Of course you can write most statements negatively.."The mean length is 2 cm= The mean is not different from 2 cm"...So you are not terribly off, its just that technically it means the initial hypothesis..
Delete..." are then H_1, H_2"...
Delete4:58 -get a girlfriend otherwise you're going to experience a lot of frustrating lonely nights where all you do is come on here and post bollocks
DeleteJoe
4:58... We're working on it, but you'll have to do a lot better than that to shut people like me up.
DeleteGet a specimen. Otherwise, shut up.
DeleteI don't think anything will shut up Mr. Cut and Paste 8:39.
How about you shut me up... Because as long you fumble so impeccably at explaining the evidence away, you'll have me around here to remind you that there's been plenty found... None caught.
DeleteI likes me some t ate r hole.
ReplyDeleteHelp the squatch save them all
ReplyDeleteFAF
ReplyDeleteCGI.
MMC
Still nothing. No bigfoot. Ever.
ReplyDeleteexcept BOBO from Finding Bigfoot team said he seen Bigfoots when he been in the bush
Deletehttp://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
Deletehttp://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
Glad I could help.
I am more interested in the location of the carvings! Any Ideas?
ReplyDelete