Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Buffgeek on November 02, 2008, 08:34:50 AM
-
I was watching the Ben Stein Documentary "Expelled" and was shocked to hear Dawkins talk about the possibility of Intelligent design in the creation of life on earth as well as the possibility that was planted on earth through a more advanced Society.
I am really curious to get yours guys take on this film. It raises some really interesting questions and isnt promoting any specific religion rather its asking the question of why scientists are bieng blacklisted for using the possibility of ID in their research. Its frightening when we cannot question scientific theories....
This reminds me of the research done in the 60s from the American Heart Association resulting in the lowfat diet. Lowfat = high carbs, which dramatically raised the levels of obesity in this country over the past several decades. They still cannot agree if Cholesterol is bad and what its true effects are...
Scientiets are suppose to disprove theories until they cannot, not try to prove a theory for an agenda.
Guys like Hugo, 240, Ozmo I curious to get your take...
-
Ben Stein contorted what Dawkins said. Dawkins said that IF intelligent design were to turn out to be true, then it would likely be the result of some advanced alien civilization producing the seeds of life here on earth. This is "IF" intelligent design turned out to be true, and Dawkins explained that scenario. Ben Stein then turned what he said into him being in support of intelligent design.
Major spin.
-
To be a true scientist one cannot be absolutely sure about anything (meaning 100%).
He himself has said that on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being sure there is a God and 7 being sure there is no God) he is a 6. He's pretty sure there are no pink fairies or unicorns but he cannot prove them.
What does that say about those 1's that are 100% sure there is a God but cannot come close to actually proving it?
-
The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.
-
The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.
If I'm channel surfing one day and it's on I'll watch it but I have no plans to rent the movie.
-
The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.
no they are not, like who?
he misrepresented what dawkins meant, if you read some of his work you will understand this.
-
The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.
...to be fair to BuffGeek, for all practical purposes this is pretty much true.
But to be similarly fair to the scientific community, any serious consideration of any non-scientific hogwash is similarly frowned upon.
A scientist would be "discredited" (no accomplished scientist is ever seriously blacklisted) if he seriously proposed:
-telepathy
-ghosts
-an afterlife
-homeopathy
-Reiki or faith healing
..it's all bunkum... impossible, and only considered plausible by the misinformed.
In fact, even serious consideration of any religion is deemed delusional by hard science academics.
The Luke
-
Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.
-
Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.
bing bang boom thats why we need a naturalistic mechanism for existence, any intelligence that is complex is improbable, we already know this, the more complex the more time and the more improbable.
-
...to be fair to BuffGeek, for all practical purposes this is pretty much true.
But to be similarly fair to the scientific community, any serious consideration of any non-scientific hogwash is similarly frowned upon.
A scientist would be "discredited" (no accomplished scientist is ever seriously blacklisted) if he seriously proposed:
-telepathy
-ghosts
-an afterlife
-homeopathy
-Reiki or faith healing
..it's all bunkum... impossible, and only considered plausible by the misinformed.
In fact, even serious consideration of any religion is deemed delusional by hard science academics.
The Luke
ummm
reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.
Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.
-
ummm
reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.
Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.
Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.
The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.
Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity.... That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.
-
The whole point of the film in this case is any scientists that even mentions Intelligent Design is blacklisted. Its almost frightening. I am just curious if anyone else has seen the film and what their thoughts were.
It's bullshit though. Plenty of scientists, including professors of mine, have discussed intelligent design in less than critical terms. The only professors kicked out are those who try to argue for intelligent design when they are supposed to be teaching science.
-
Quite obviously, Dawkins cannot answer the question of origin. His possible explanation of an alien species explains nothing since the same question must then be applied to those aliens and so on. However all of that entirely misses the point, and that's why Stein misses the point just as much as Dawkins.
Dawkins JUST said that "IF", and "IF" being emphasized here, intelligent design had any viability then it would be in the form of Aliens seeding life on earth, but as you say, that just defers the main point of the origin of life in general, which is absolutely and positively Darwinian natural selection.
-
ummm
reiki is not even close to faith healing, ruber sheldrake is an accomplished scientist and has some pretty unique studies on telepathy.Homeotoxicolog y is used in medicine already, i agree homeopathy is pretty ridiculous but there are some studies showing an effect.
Not to digress i just dont think anyone is blacklisted unless they lie and side step the scientific method, anything can be studied as long as it uses proper methodology.
There have certainly been some studies here and there on mumbo-jumbo bullshit like Reiki, Psychics, Hoemopathy, Accupuncture, etc.
However, no studies done in peer reviewed and credible journals and done by reputable scientists in verifiable and reputable ways have been reproduced or accepted by many people. The reason is because there are far too many reasons why some studies show positive effects which don't include the things being true or reality and so many studies, under closer examination, have been shown to be flawed in one way or another.
Many reputable scientists have examined mumbo-jumbo things like this and haven't been blacklisted though. Only if they are deceptive or commit fraud are they "blacklisted", if the term can be used.
-
Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.
The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.
Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity.... That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.
I don't know how many times it has been posted on this board and the religion board, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY!!!!
Using purely scientific terms, a "theory" doesn't mean what you think anyway. A Theory is just a framework which scientists work with which include facts and make predictions.
"Evolution" itself, I.E. life evolving via natural selection is a 'FACT'. It has been shown to be true millions of times in the past 150 years that anyone doubting it is truly an idiot.
The common phrase "theory of evolution" is just a framework associated with evolution and includes many details and facts and makes accurate predictions about what will be discovered, etc.
You really need to learn Scientific lingo before going around saying dumb bullshit like "Evolution is still just a theory", as if theories somehow become facts in science. They don't.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
-
There have certainly been some studies here and there on mumbo-jumbo bullshit like Reiki, Psychics, Hoemopathy, Accupuncture, etc.
However, no studies done in peer reviewed and credible journals and done by reputable scientists in verifiable and reputable ways have been reproduced or accepted by many people. The reason is because there are far too many reasons why some studies show positive effects which don't include the things being true or reality and so many studies, under closer examination, have been shown to be flawed in one way or another.
Many reputable scientists have examined mumbo-jumbo things like this and haven't been blacklisted though. Only if they are deceptive or commit fraud are they "blacklisted", if the term can be used.
accupuncture if studied properly could show benefits. There are studies showing accupuncture works for pain relief via endogenous opiate activity and is blocked by naltrexone. There is insufficient data on alot of the material, homeopathy is bunk imo, homotoxicology is effective and there are many studies showing its effectiveness. There is also evidence of homeopathy workign on cell lines, although the study did not intend that. Reiki is non sense, accupuncture certainly not, but i dont think it is chi, it has physical effects which makes sense since needles are being inserted at particular points of the body, i have studied accupuncture and asian medicine and i doubt anything energetic exists, it is simply pharmacological. My med school back home has a department for accupuncture now because of demand.
your last sentence is exactly what i was getting at.
-
Yes but anyone who doesnt follow Darwin as absolute gospel in the scientific community if treated like a cancer. The point of the movie was to show that in the scientific community they is a large move to crush anyone who even mentions the possibility of Intelligent design and anyone who critisizes the merits of Darwinism as absolute truth.
The simple fact of the matter is no scientist living today or in the past knows how exactly life was created. Our understanding of a simple cell is 1000 times greater than Darwins time, so to say you know exactly for certain a certain theory is truth seems to go competely against the scientific method.
Evolution is still a "Theory" yet its bieng treated as a scientific law like gravity.... That seems insane considering there are still so many unanswered questions. I dont want religion interferring with science, I want every avenue available to our scientists for discovery. This backlash that is happening behind closed doors in the scientific community seems like its in communist China rather than the USA.
evolution is just as factual as gravity, both are theories, are you unaware of this? Creation of life is not evoution, that is abiogenesis why does everyone make this fatal error. It is either you dont know what evolution entails or you do and are flat out lying.
there is no backlash, the movie is bunk garbage with the lowest rating on rotten tomatoes ever, everyone lied in the movie about their blacklisting and dismissals. Who exactly was blacklisted, and what relevant research were they blacklisted for.
-
Dawkins JUST said that "IF", and "IF" being emphasized here, intelligent design had any viability then it would be in the form of Aliens seeding life on earth, but as you say, that just defers the main point of the origin of life in general, which is absolutely and positively Darwinian natural selection.
As I said, they are both missing the point, which is that any scientific theory (or "law") can always only talk about scientific aspects of the world.
-
As I said, they are both missing the point, which is that any scientific theory (or "law") can always only talk about scientific aspects of the world.
AKA reality
-
AKA reality
Nopes, has nothing to do with it. A pure scientist is not interested in reality and can say nothing about it.
If he does -> pseudo philosopher = Dawkins.
-
I don't know how many times it has been posted on this board and the religion board, but EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY!!!!
Using purely scientific terms, a "theory" doesn't mean what you think anyway. A Theory is just a framework which scientists work with which include facts and make predictions.
"Evolution" itself, I.E. life evolving via natural selection is a 'FACT'. It has been shown to be true millions of times in the past 150 years that anyone doubting it is truly an idiot.
The common phrase "theory of evolution" is just a framework associated with evolution and includes many details and facts and makes accurate predictions about what will be discovered, etc.
You really need to learn Scientific lingo before going around saying dumb bullshit like "Evolution is still just a theory", as if theories somehow become facts in science. They don't.
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.
Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.
If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region. Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.
My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.
If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?
-
I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.
Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.
If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region. Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.
My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.
If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?
ok so its number one then you know nothing of evolution. every fossil is a transitional fossil it is slow and graduated.
it has more support then any other theory in history based on amounts of evidence and different fields converging on the same conclusions.
the first cell formation is abiogenesis, dont repeat this fallacy again it has been corrected.
there are no gaps like you say there are, we have witnessed formation of new species also.
greatest theory in modern history.
-
ok so its number one then you know nothing of evolution. every fossil is a transitional fossil it is slow and graduated.
it has more support then any other theory in history based on amounts of evidence and different fields converging on the same conclusions.
the first cell formation is abiogenesis, dont repeat this fallacy again it has been corrected.
there are no gaps like you say there are, we have witnessed formation of new species also.
greatest theory in modern history.
Look I am not a scientist. I just know that while this is our most solid understanding of our origins, we have so much more to learn. There is still a great deal we do not understand. It is not my intention to disprove evolutiono or even say is has no validity as that would be foolish. The whole point of my post is that it seems very frighting that in the United States that we can not deviate from a theory however grounded without serious remifications. To me this seems like an academic thought police state. Provided there is scientific basis for these types of research, I dont understand why there needs to be such hatred towards these scientists.
Also please dont tell me what to say/not say again. Read what I said. I said "correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they?"
I then stated "They certainly do not know how that first cell was created."
Isnt abiogenesis the development of life from nonliving matter? That is a bit different from my previous statement in which i asked if scientists could prove that all life evoled from a single celled organism.
My last comment was alluding to abiogenesis and the fact that there is no answer yet to how this process happened.
The only reason I even mentioned it in this respect is that I thought that Darwin referenced the possibility of the first cell bieng created by a lighting strike in a pool of muddy water and all life forms coming from that culimnation of that...
-
accupuncture if studied properly could show benefits. There are studies showing accupuncture works for pain relief via endogenous opiate activity and is blocked by naltrexone. There is insufficient data on alot of the material, homeopathy is bunk imo, homotoxicology is effective and there are many studies showing its effectiveness. There is also evidence of homeopathy workign on cell lines, although the study did not intend that. Reiki is non sense, accupuncture certainly not, but i dont think it is chi, it has physical effects which makes sense since needles are being inserted at particular points of the body, i have studied accupuncture and asian medicine and i doubt anything energetic exists, it is simply pharmacological. My med school back home has a department for accupuncture now because of demand.
your last sentence is exactly what i was getting at.
Acupuncture doesn't work. Sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain. There is a difference. Acupuncture is a discipline based on, as you say, energy fields and chi and what not, and these things don't exist. Human "bio-fields" exist, but aren't the "chi" as described by ancient Chinese, biofields exist in non-living things such as dead plants, and there is no correlation between the pain relief of sticking needles into one's skin and the biofields.
It works because of how the brain perceives pain and injury. A needle won't cause any real pain, but the brain will perceive injury and will release endorphins.
-
I understand a species can "evolve" in that small changes in its adatability to its environment, but correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they? They certainly do not know how that first cell was created.
Wrong. Scientists have proven this already at least 120 years ago, and today is is absolutely positively hard fact. Dozens of fields of biological study prove common descent of all life on earth. There are things, such as in gene retro viruses, that can't be explained unless common descent is a fact.
Last I checked there was a fairly large gap in life forms that fill in the transitional gaps in the evolution of many many species, so the theory of evolution is applied to bridge that gap. We are talking about huge spans of time here. This seems to me almost as much a shot in the dark as blind funementialist christianity.
No. Any transitional fossils prove evolution. Gaps will always exist because the fossil record will never be complete.
If all of these transitional forms existed why have we not found them? New species are always popping up in the fossil records with no close links to previous life forms in older rocks in the same region. Fossil records dont seem to support these transitional changes.
Google it. There are THOUSANDS of transitional fossils. New species will ALWAYS pop up without any known immediate ancestors or descendants, this is how the fossil record grows. Gradually scientists find their ancestors and descendants, but sometimes they don't and whole branches of evolutionary tree are missing because they just never fossilized. Big chunks. But we still know that evolution is true because there is a tree, even if a branch is missing.
My point in all this is if we do not have all these answers then why discredit anyone who disagrees with this theory.
If they can find scientific proof of a signature within a cell shoudlnt that be celebrated?
We have those answers.
-
Look I am not a scientist. I just know that while this is our most solid understanding of our origins, we have so much more to learn. There is still a great deal we do not understand. It is not my intention to disprove evolutiono or even say is has no validity as that would be foolish. The whole point of my post is that it seems very frighting that in the United States that we can not deviate from a theory however grounded without serious remifications. To me this seems like an academic thought police state. Provided there is scientific basis for these types of research, I dont understand why there needs to be such hatred towards these scientists.
Also please dont tell me what to say/not say again. Read what I said. I said "correct me if I am wrong, scientists cannot prove/disprove that all live was evolved from a single celled organism can they?"
I then stated "They certainly do not know how that first cell was created."
Isnt abiogenesis the development of life from nonliving matter? That is a bit different from my previous statement in which i asked if scientists could prove that all life evoled from a single celled organism.
My last comment was alluding to abiogenesis and the fact that there is no answer yet to how this process happened.
The only reason I even mentioned it in this respect is that I thought that Darwin referenced the possibility of the first cell bieng created by a lighting strike in a pool of muddy water and all life forms coming from that culimnation of that...
There is ZERO scientific basis for intelligent design or creationism. Scientific papers are often posted that QUESTION specific aspects of evolutionary theory, and are treated just like any scientific papers and are peer reviewed and criticized and evaluated. However if someone tries to say that "Evolution isn't true" or that "Common descent didn't occur" then they would be laughed at, and rightfully so, since we KNOW 100% that evolution is true and that common descent is a fact.
ANYWAY, people who do write books or publish papers trying to refute evolution or give credibility to intelligent design are ALWAYS refuted. Their work isn't ignored, it is evaluated and refuted. Look at the stuff done by Michael Behe and see how so many scientist have closely examined his claims and refuted them over and over and over.
-
Acupuncture doesn't work. Sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain. There is a difference. Acupuncture is a discipline based on, as you say, energy fields and chi and what not, and these things don't exist. Human "bio-fields" exist, but aren't the "chi" as described by ancient Chinese, biofields exist in non-living things such as dead plants, and there is no correlation between the pain relief of sticking needles into one's skin and the biofields.
It works because of how the brain perceives pain and injury. A needle won't cause any real pain, but the brain will perceive injury and will release endorphins.
im not sure you have read the research, have you?
the meridians can be seen as actual examples of high energy conduits within the nervous system, they can possibly effect nervous system processing as it effects electrical inputs. If what you say is true then cutting oneself should provide the same benefits as accupuncture regardless of the point.
Ill dig through the research so we can have a look at it.
-
im not sure you have read the research, have you?
the meridians can be seen as actual examples of high energy conduits within the nervous system, they can possibly effect nervous system processing as it effects electrical inputs. If what you say is true then cutting oneself should provide the same benefits as accupuncture regardless of the point.
Ill dig through the research so we can have a look at it.
No. I don't buy that. "high energy conduits"? I've seen no proof showing that sticking needles into the skin has any relation to any bio-field in humans or anything about "high energy conduits" or "electrical inputs".
Yes. Cutting yourself does provide the same effects of acupuncture, but stronger. This is why teenagers cut themselves, to get the release of endorphins. It creates a high for them.
-
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2008 Oct;28(10):727-9.
[Observation on therapeutic effect of electroacupuncture on activity disturbance of the shoulder joint after operation of fracture][Article in Chinese]
Luo KM, Hou Z, Yang L.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tangshan City Second Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei 063000, China. tstslkm@163.com
OBJECTIVE: To observe clinical therapeutic effects of electroacupuncture, radiation of infrared rays plus passive exercise on movement disorders of shoulder joint after operation of fracture of surgical neck of humerous. METHODS: Sixty cases were randomly divided into an acupuncture plus exercise group (n = 32) and an exercise therapy group (n = 28). The acupuncture plus exercise group were treated with electroacupuncture and infrared ray radiation at rigid soft tissue on the affected side, with adjuvant points, Xuehai (SP 10), Sanyinjiao (SP 6) and Yang-lingquan (GB 34) selected for acupuncture treatment and after the needles were withdrawn passive exercise of the shoulder joints were made. The exercise therapy group were treated by active exercise after passive exercise of shoulder joint. Therapeutic effects were observed after treatment for one month, and shoulder pain scores VAS and scores of activity of shoulder joint before and after treatment were observed. RESULTS: The total effective rate of 84.4% in the acupuncture plus exercise group was better than 64.3% in the exercise group. Before and after treatment, the VAS scores were 5.8 +/- 0.5 and 3.1 +/- 0.3 in the acupuncture plus exercise group, and 5.7 +/- 0.5, 4.3 +/- 0.4 in the exercise therapy group, respectively, with significant decreases after treatment in the two groups (both P < 0.001), the acupuncture plus exercise group being more significantly decreased than the exercise therapy group (P < 0.001). Before and after treatment, the total scores of activity of shoulder joint were 103.38 +/- 11.10 and 193.61 +/- 10.21 in the acupuncture plus exercise group, and 103.01 +/- 10.01 and 133.45 +/- 9.81 in the exercise therapy group, respectively, with significant increases after treatment in the two groups (both P < 0. 01), the acupuncture plus exercise group being better than the exercise therapy group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Electroacupuncture, radiation of infrared rays plus passive exercise has obvious therapeutic effect on movement disorders of shoulder joint after operation of fracture of surgical neck of humerous.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2008 Sep 30. [Epub ahead of print]
The Influence of Acupressure at Extra 1 Acupuncture Point on the Spectral Entropy of the EEG and the LF/HF Ratio of Heart Rate Variability.Arai YC, Ushida T, Matsubara T, Shimo K, Ito H, Sato Y, Wakao Y, Komatsu T.
Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Aichi Medical University, School of Medicine, 21 Karimata, Nagakutecho, Aichigun, Aichi, 480-1195, Japan. arainon@aichi-med-u.ac.jp.
Acupressure applied on the Extra 1 acupuncture point results in sedation, thereby reducing bispectral index (BIS) values. Mental status and hypnotic agents influence the autonomic nervous system. We hypothesized that acupressure at the Extra 1 point would induce sedation and change sympatho-parasympathetic nerve balance. We investigated the effect of acupressure at the Extra 1 point on the EEG spectral entropy values and heart rate variability (HRV). Forty-eight volunteers (24 males and 24 females) were randomly assigned to the control or Extra 1 group. The control group received acupressure at a sham point and the Extra 1 group received acupressure at the Extra 1 point. Acupressure was applied for 5 min. The record of the EEG spectral entropy values and HRV started 5 min before acupressure and stopped 5 min after acupressure. Acupressure significantly reduced the EEG spectral entropy values in both groups, but the values of the Extra 1 group were significantly smaller than those of the control group (P < 0.01). Acupressure significantly decreased the LF/HF ratio of HRV in both groups (P < 0.05). When divided upon gender, although acupressure tended to decrease the LF/HF ratio, the ratio significantly decreased during and after acupressure only in females of the Extra 1 group (P < 0.05). We concluded that acupressure on the Extra 1 point significantly reduced the EEG spectral entropy in both the genders, but affected the LF/HF ratio of HRV only in females.
Klin Padiatr. 2008 Nov-Dec;220(6):365-70. Epub 2008 Oct 23.Links
Acupuncture to Alleviate Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Oncology - A Randomized Multicenter Crossover Pilot Trial.Gottschling S, Reindl TK, Meyer S, Berrang J, Henze G, Graeber S, Ong MF, Graf N.
1Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
BACKGROUND: We investigated whether acupuncture as a supportive antiemetic approach reduces the need for antiemetic rescue medication during highly emetogenic chemotherapy in pediatric oncology. We report on a multicenter crossover study at 5 tertiary hospitals in Germany. PROCEDURE: Twenty-three children (13.6 y,+/- 2.9) receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for treatment of solid malignant tumors were included. Patients were randomly allocated to receive acupuncture treatment during either the second or third identical chemotherapy course together with standard antiemetic medication. The main outcome measure was the amount of additional antiemetic medication during chemotherapy. Secondary outcome measure was the number of episodes of vomiting per course. RESULTS: Fourty-six chemotherapy courses with or without acupuncture were compared. The need for rescue antiemetic medication was significantly lower in acupuncture courses compared to control courses (p=0.001) Episodes of vomiting per course were also significantly lower in courses with acupuncture (p=0.01). Except for pain from needling (4/23) no side effects occurred. Patients acceptance of acupuncture was high. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture as applied here seems to be effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.
There is a ton more research but i specifically selected diverse studies to show you that your simple theory is in fact, wrong.
-
No. I don't buy that. "high energy conduits"? I've seen no proof showing that sticking needles into the skin has any relation to any bio-field in humans or anything about "high energy conduits" or "electrical inputs".
Yes. Cutting yourself does provide the same effects of acupuncture, but stronger. This is why teenagers cut themselves, to get the release of endorphins. It creates a high for them.
you dont know anything about chinese medicine so its hard for you to conceptualize what im trying to say however, the accupunture meridians run along dense nervous tissue, areas of high ganglionic activity etc.. there is a correlation btween nervous tissue, organs etc and meridian points. Our bodies operate via electrical input/output voltage gated channels etc...
we are electrical beings, the initially depolarization or influx of NA into the neuron causes a spike in electrical activity from there many things can happen including calcium influx and exocytosis and pre synaptic release of neuropeptides. Needles are certain points could alter these physiological mechanisms and bring about change in the body. This is what im getting at, i also thing chi is bunk garbage.
-
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2008 Oct;28(10):727-9.
[Observation on therapeutic effect of electroacupuncture on activity disturbance of the shoulder joint after operation of fracture][Article in Chinese]
Luo KM, Hou Z, Yang L.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Tangshan City Second Hospital, Tangshan, Hebei 063000, China. tstslkm@163.com
OBJECTIVE: To observe clinical therapeutic effects of electroacupuncture, radiation of infrared rays plus passive exercise on movement disorders of shoulder joint after operation of fracture of surgical neck of humerous. METHODS: Sixty cases were randomly divided into an acupuncture plus exercise group (n = 32) and an exercise therapy group (n = 28). The acupuncture plus exercise group were treated with electroacupuncture and infrared ray radiation at rigid soft tissue on the affected side, with adjuvant points, Xuehai (SP 10), Sanyinjiao (SP 6) and Yang-lingquan (GB 34) selected for acupuncture treatment and after the needles were withdrawn passive exercise of the shoulder joints were made. The exercise therapy group were treated by active exercise after passive exercise of shoulder joint. Therapeutic effects were observed after treatment for one month, and shoulder pain scores VAS and scores of activity of shoulder joint before and after treatment were observed. RESULTS: The total effective rate of 84.4% in the acupuncture plus exercise group was better than 64.3% in the exercise group. Before and after treatment, the VAS scores were 5.8 +/- 0.5 and 3.1 +/- 0.3 in the acupuncture plus exercise group, and 5.7 +/- 0.5, 4.3 +/- 0.4 in the exercise therapy group, respectively, with significant decreases after treatment in the two groups (both P < 0.001), the acupuncture plus exercise group being more significantly decreased than the exercise therapy group (P < 0.001). Before and after treatment, the total scores of activity of shoulder joint were 103.38 +/- 11.10 and 193.61 +/- 10.21 in the acupuncture plus exercise group, and 103.01 +/- 10.01 and 133.45 +/- 9.81 in the exercise therapy group, respectively, with significant increases after treatment in the two groups (both P < 0. 01), the acupuncture plus exercise group being better than the exercise therapy group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Electroacupuncture, radiation of infrared rays plus passive exercise has obvious therapeutic effect on movement disorders of shoulder joint after operation of fracture of surgical neck of humerous.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2008 Sep 30. [Epub ahead of print]
The Influence of Acupressure at Extra 1 Acupuncture Point on the Spectral Entropy of the EEG and the LF/HF Ratio of Heart Rate Variability.Arai YC, Ushida T, Matsubara T, Shimo K, Ito H, Sato Y, Wakao Y, Komatsu T.
Multidisciplinary Pain Centre, Aichi Medical University, School of Medicine, 21 Karimata, Nagakutecho, Aichigun, Aichi, 480-1195, Japan. arainon@aichi-med-u.ac.jp.
Acupressure applied on the Extra 1 acupuncture point results in sedation, thereby reducing bispectral index (BIS) values. Mental status and hypnotic agents influence the autonomic nervous system. We hypothesized that acupressure at the Extra 1 point would induce sedation and change sympatho-parasympathetic nerve balance. We investigated the effect of acupressure at the Extra 1 point on the EEG spectral entropy values and heart rate variability (HRV). Forty-eight volunteers (24 males and 24 females) were randomly assigned to the control or Extra 1 group. The control group received acupressure at a sham point and the Extra 1 group received acupressure at the Extra 1 point. Acupressure was applied for 5 min. The record of the EEG spectral entropy values and HRV started 5 min before acupressure and stopped 5 min after acupressure. Acupressure significantly reduced the EEG spectral entropy values in both groups, but the values of the Extra 1 group were significantly smaller than those of the control group (P < 0.01). Acupressure significantly decreased the LF/HF ratio of HRV in both groups (P < 0.05). When divided upon gender, although acupressure tended to decrease the LF/HF ratio, the ratio significantly decreased during and after acupressure only in females of the Extra 1 group (P < 0.05). We concluded that acupressure on the Extra 1 point significantly reduced the EEG spectral entropy in both the genders, but affected the LF/HF ratio of HRV only in females.
Klin Padiatr. 2008 Nov-Dec;220(6):365-70. Epub 2008 Oct 23.Links
Acupuncture to Alleviate Chemotherapy-induced Nausea and Vomiting in Pediatric Oncology - A Randomized Multicenter Crossover Pilot Trial.Gottschling S, Reindl TK, Meyer S, Berrang J, Henze G, Graeber S, Ong MF, Graf N.
1Department of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
BACKGROUND: We investigated whether acupuncture as a supportive antiemetic approach reduces the need for antiemetic rescue medication during highly emetogenic chemotherapy in pediatric oncology. We report on a multicenter crossover study at 5 tertiary hospitals in Germany. PROCEDURE: Twenty-three children (13.6 y,+/- 2.9) receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for treatment of solid malignant tumors were included. Patients were randomly allocated to receive acupuncture treatment during either the second or third identical chemotherapy course together with standard antiemetic medication. The main outcome measure was the amount of additional antiemetic medication during chemotherapy. Secondary outcome measure was the number of episodes of vomiting per course. RESULTS: Fourty-six chemotherapy courses with or without acupuncture were compared. The need for rescue antiemetic medication was significantly lower in acupuncture courses compared to control courses (p=0.001) Episodes of vomiting per course were also significantly lower in courses with acupuncture (p=0.01). Except for pain from needling (4/23) no side effects occurred. Patients acceptance of acupuncture was high. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture as applied here seems to be effective in preventing nausea and vomiting in pediatric cancer patients.
There is a ton more research but i specifically selected diverse studies to show you that your simple theory is in fact, wrong.
I never said that sticking needles into one's skin didn't relieve specific symptoms.
you dont know anything about chinese medicine so its hard for you to conceptualize what im trying to say however, the accupunture meridians run along dense nervous tissue, areas of high ganglionic activity etc.. there is a correlation btween nervous tissue, organs etc and meridian points. Our bodies operate via electrical input/output voltage gated channels etc...
we are electrical beings, the initially depolarization or influx of NA into the neuron causes a spike in electrical activity from there many things can happen including calcium influx and exocytosis and pre synaptic release of neuropeptides. Needles are certain points could alter these physiological mechanisms and bring about change in the body. This is what im getting at, i also thing chi is bunk garbage.
I know what you're saying and I'm saying that I don't buy it. Electricity plays a small part in human physiology, but it is a stretch to say that humans are "electrical beings". I know it is an appealing thing to think but it just isn't so. Sticking needles into the SKIN relieves pain because of release of endorphins. The needles don't even go deep enough to affect much of anything.
-
I never said that sticking needles into one's skin didn't relieve specific symptoms.
I know what you're saying and I'm saying that I don't buy it. Electricity plays a small part in human physiology, but it is a stretch to say that humans are "electrical beings". I know it is an appealing thing to think but it just isn't so. Sticking needles into the SKIN relieves pain because of release of endorphins. The needles don't even go deep enough to affect much of anything.
theres nothing for you to buy, the studies prove otherwise. Our nervous system is hugely electrica, the electrical effects the chemical, conductance is major in the lipid bilayers.
so how does applying pressure to accupunture points change physiology of the heart, induce sedation. How do needles provide antiemetic activity to strong nauseants?
your obviously wrong. Endorphin release in the Peri aquaductal gray would take a little while to occur while substance P ran wild, your explanation leaves alot to be desired. Dont buy it all you want just dont ignore evidence.
more research needs to be done.
-
theres nothing for you to buy, the studies prove otherwise. Our nervous system is hugely electrica, the electrical effects the chemical, conductance is major in the lipid bilayers.
so how does applying pressure to accupunture points change physiology of the heart, induce sedation. How do needles provide antiemetic activity to strong nauseants?
your obviously wrong. Endorphin release in the Peri aquaductal gray would take a little while to occur while substance P ran wild, your explanation leaves alot to be desired. Dont buy it all you want just dont ignore evidence.
more research needs to be done.
The brain is a powerful thing. If it perceives injury then it will release certain hormones and produce certain reactions that can do all of the things that you mention include relieve pain, nausea, induce sedation, etc. This is what happens when people get injured, their bodies start to take measures to reduce pain and fix the injury.
-
The brain is a powerful thing. If it perceives injury then it will release certain hormones and produce certain reactions that can do all of the things that you mention include relieve pain, nausea, induce sedation, etc. This is what happens when people get injured, their bodies start to take measures to reduce pain and fix the injury.
from simple needle stick? to chemotherapy?
what if certain points worked more then others?
clearly inserting needles "not deep enough to do anything" would not induce such cataclysmic changes in physiology, if you think so then any time you get touched and pushed on etc.. hugh neuroendocrinological changes would take place.
-
from simple needle stick? to chemotherapy?
what if certain points worked more then others?
clearly inserting needles "not deep enough to do anything" would not induce such cataclysmic changes in physiology, if you think so then any time you get touched and pushed on etc.. hugh neuroendocrinological changes would take place.
I would use the word "cataclysmic" to describe the physiological changes that occur. The changes are often too small to even be efficiently studied, and some people get absolutely no effects. The needles are only deep enough to trick the brain into doing certain things to relieve pain or help with perceived injury.
-
I would use the word "cataclysmic" to describe the physiological changes that occur. The changes are often too small to even be efficiently studied, and some people get absolutely no effects. The needles are only deep enough to trick the brain into doing certain things to relieve pain or help with perceived injury.
ok lets go with the trickery theory, still means its effective therapy, you claimed it didnt work.
-
ok lets go with the trickery theory, still means its effective therapy, you claimed it didnt work.
I said that acupuncture didn't work. Acupuncture is the whole thing about chi and energy flowing and what not. Simply sticking needles into one's skin isn't acupuncture, it's sticking needles into one's skin.
-
I said that acupuncture didn't work. Acupuncture is the whole thing about chi and energy flowing and what not. Simply sticking needles into one's skin isn't acupuncture, it's sticking needles into one's skin.
sticking needles into accupuncuture points like the studies did, for example Urinary Bladder 32 is accupuncture. Whatever mechanism they use to explain the action is irrelevant.
accupuncture is the use of needles at particular points to effect the being, if its chi doing the work or histamine or god that does not matter, that is another question. You said accupuncture was not effective, perhaps you should re phrase it to say, i dont beleive the mechanisms they propose.
-
...to be fair to BuffGeek, for all practical purposes this is pretty much true.
But to be similarly fair to the scientific community, any serious consideration of any non-scientific hogwash is similarly frowned upon.
A scientist would be "discredited" (no accomplished scientist is ever seriously blacklisted) if he seriously proposed:
-telepathy
-ghosts
-an afterlife
-homeopathy
-Reiki or faith healing
..it's all bunkum... impossible, and only considered plausible by the misinformed.
In fact, even serious consideration of any religion is deemed delusional by hard science academics.
The Luke
Theres no question that homeopathy works. Its hard to show how right now but in the future science will.
-
Theres no question that homeopathy works. Its hard to show how right now but in the future science will.
It works for "non threatening" life instances. I never seen it cure cancer, Crohn's disease, diabetes, etc. like so many of the wackos out there say. If that were true, then medical care would be much cheaper since homeopathic remedies are much, much cheaper than chemo, radiation therapy, etc.
-
Theres no question that homeopathy works. Its hard to show how right now but in the future science will.
...no, there's no evidence that homeopathy works.
For every badly designed study that some whack-job uses to promote homeopathy there are dozens if not hundreds of well designed double-blind studies that show no effect whatsoever (beyond the placebo effect).
The Luke
-
Nopes, has nothing to do with it. A pure scientist is not interested in reality and can say nothing about it.
If he does -> pseudo philosopher = Dawkins.
As if philosophers had answers.... ::)
-
...no, there's no evidence that homeopathy works.
For every badly designed study that some whack-job uses to promote homeopathy there are dozens if not hundreds of well designed double-blind studies that show no effect whatsoever (beyond the placebo effect).
The Luke
Absolute bs, I didnt believe in it until I was electrocuted by a power line that I grabbed onto which fried my feet so bad that the doctors in the hospital insisted they must amputate both my feet. I was willing to give anything a go to save them and a friend recommended I try some homeopathic medicine, which I then took, the pain vanished within hours and my feet started to heal so quickly my family took me home after just two days of being in hospital and I now have both my feet 10 years later.. Lol.."placebo" effect.
Been taking homeopathic medicine ever since and have not once had to see a GP...
No homeopathy isnt a be all end all medicine, but it sure does work, I recommend you try it yourself, the proof is in the pudding.
-
Absolute bs, I didnt believe in it until I was electrocuted by a power line that I grabbed onto which fried my feet so bad that the doctors in the hospital insisted they must amputate both my feet. I was willing to give anything a go to save them and a friend recommended I try some homeopathic medicine, which I then took, the pain vanished within hours and my feet started to heal so quickly my family took me home after just two days of being in hospital and I now have both my feet 10 years later.. Lol.."placebo" effect.
Been taking homeopathic medicine ever since and have not once had to see a GP...
No homeopathy isnt a be all end all medicine, but it sure does work, I recommend you try it yourself, the proof is in the pudding.
By what mechanism does homeopathy work?
-
Absolute bs, I didnt believe in it until I was electrocuted by a power line that I grabbed onto which fried my feet so bad that the doctors in the hospital insisted they must amputate both my feet. I was willing to give anything a go to save them and a friend recommended I try some homeopathic medicine, which I then took, the pain vanished within hours and my feet started to heal so quickly my family took me home after just two days of being in hospital and I now have both my feet 10 years later.. Lol.."placebo" effect.
Been taking homeopathic medicine ever since and have not once had to see a GP...
No homeopathy isnt a be all end all medicine, but it sure does work, I recommend you try it yourself, the proof is in the pudding.
Call the Amazing Randi... he'll give you a million dollars cash if you can prove this story. Should be easy with all those medical records.
Also, tell your doctor to submit your story to the Nobel Foundation for consideration for the Nobel Prize in Medicine ($1m+ prize money).
The Luke
-
Yes would be great, but like you said its incredably hard to show evidence how/why homeopathy works othats why I said the only way you yourself will know for sure is if you try it..
I have a huge respect for MD's, and what not, and I truly think they only mean the best, and to help people, however I think they get brainwashed by the pharmaceutical companies which see homeopathic medicine as a threat to their sales..
-
Theres no question that homeopathy works. Its hard to show how right now but in the future science will.
Stick the needles anywhere in the skin and they will work.
-
Theres no question that homeopathy works. Its hard to show how right now but in the future science will.
Homeopathy can't work. The substances are so diluted that they aren't anything but wax or pure water. In most cases no molecule of the original substance remains in the "medicine" and it's just water or wax or whatever. Putting some cure into a huge thing of water and shaking it around, then removing all molecules of the cure leaves still nothing but water. Any benefit is purely placebo.
-
Absolute bs, I didnt believe in it until I was electrocuted by a power line that I grabbed onto which fried my feet so bad that the doctors in the hospital insisted they must amputate both my feet. I was willing to give anything a go to save them and a friend recommended I try some homeopathic medicine, which I then took, the pain vanished within hours and my feet started to heal so quickly my family took me home after just two days of being in hospital and I now have both my feet 10 years later.. Lol.."placebo" effect.
Been taking homeopathic medicine ever since and have not once had to see a GP...
No homeopathy isnt a be all end all medicine, but it sure does work, I recommend you try it yourself, the proof is in the pudding.
That's either a coincidence, idiot doctor, or the placebo. Those are the only rational answers. Intelligent people don't take a single case and try to use it as justification for an entire field of medicine having validity.
-
Homeopathy can't work. The substances are so diluted that they aren't anything but wax or pure water. In most cases no molecule of the original substance remains in the "medicine" and it's just water or wax or whatever. Putting some cure into a huge thing of water and shaking it around, then removing all molecules of the cure leaves still nothing but water. Any benefit is purely placebo.
Buddy its abviously more than "purely placebo" otherwise it would not help as many people as it does. Like i said earlier, in the future science will show how, its abit hard right now.
-
Homeopathy is purely a placebo...
Think about it... any sample of water will be a homeopathic remedy for any and all substances.
There is no water anywhere on this planet that hasn't at one time or another in some dilution come into contact with EVERY possible substance on this planet.
Your drinking water is (must be) a homeopathic tincture with a "memory" of:
-sewage
-cocaine
-pharmaceuticals
-blood
-miscarriages
-condoms
...anything and everything that has ever been flushed down a toilet anywhere.
Cop on people. It's a total crock of shit.
The Luke
-
Homeopathy is purely a placebo...
Think about it... any sample of water will be a homeopathic remedy for any and all substances.
There is no water anywhere on this planet that hasn't at one time or another in some dilution come into contact with EVERY possible substance on this planet.
Your drinking water is (must be) a homeopathic tincture with a "memory" of:
-sewage
-cocaine
-pharmaceuticals
-blood
-miscarriages
-condoms
...anything and everything that has ever been flushed down a toilet anywhere.
Cop on people. It's a total crock of shit.
The Luke
thats not how homeopathy works in theory, simple contact is not sufficient, you dont know what your talking about enough to even have an opinion.
have you read any material on homeopathy? what do you know of how remedies are made? I think there is something to it although i dont buy the explanation.
-
thats not how homeopathy works in theory, simple contact is not sufficient, you dont know what your talking about enough to even have an opinion.
...I know enough about homeopathy to recognize it for what it is: quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
It is impossible to create a homeopathic remedy.
How can you dilute the homeopathic dosing agent? Where do you find molecularly pure water that hasn't ever touched another substance?
It's bollocks.
The Luke
-
...I know enough about homeopathy to recognize it for what it is: quasi-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
It is impossible to create a homeopathic remedy.
How can you dilute the homeopathic dosing agent? Where do you find molecularly pure water that hasn't ever touched another substance?
It's bollocks.
The Luke
oh ok ::) good argument.
"It is impossible to create a homeopathic remedy.
How can you dilute the homeopathic dosing agent?"
what? this doesnt even contain sense. Are you asking how you compare it to placebo? what are you asking, you misunderstand the very tenats of homeopathy, how can i even argue with you?
-
Homeopathy is purely a placebo...
Think about it... any sample of water will be a homeopathic remedy for any and all substances.
There is no water anywhere on this planet that hasn't at one time or another in some dilution come into contact with EVERY possible substance on this planet.
Your drinking water is (must be) a homeopathic tincture with a "memory" of:
-sewage
-cocaine
-pharmaceuticals
-blood
-miscarriages
-condoms
...anything and everything that has ever been flushed down a toilet anywhere.
Cop on people. It's a total crock of shit.
The Luke
Haha. Good post.
People who buy into Homeopathy B.S. don't realize that all clean drinking water would, by basic homeopathy laws, be a conglomeration of a countless number of disgusting and poisonous things.
;D
-
thats not how homeopathy works in theory, simple contact is not sufficient, you dont know what your talking about enough to even have an opinion.
have you read any material on homeopathy? what do you know of how remedies are made? I think there is something to it although i dont buy the explanation.
No...Simple contact isn't enough. "Vigorous shaking" does the trick. ::)
-
No...Simple contact isn't enough. "Vigorous shaking" does the trick. ::)
Yes, it's the "vigorous shaking" that does the trick... the molecular speeds just aren't fast enough, ha-ha!
The Luke
-
your both wrong still. serial dilution or potentization is required.
The theory is inherently logical, but i dont buy energetics. There may be a pharmacological explanation. Look at histaglobin.
-
Haha. Good post.
People who buy into Homeopathy B.S. don't realize that all clean drinking water would, by basic homeopathy laws, be a conglomeration of a countless number of disgusting and poisonous things.
;D
your showing your ignorance here, his argument doesnt make sense as simple contact is not how homeopathic remedies are made. Also if the original substance is poisonous it would be curative if your statement made any sense, again you are wrong.
Im not arguing for homeopathy or accupuncture as you can see, im just exposing ignorance from people who are not qualified to even comment on the subject, the above argument shows this ignorance.
-
your both wrong still. serial dilution or potentization is required.
The theory is inherently logical, but i dont buy energetics. There may be a pharmacological explanation. Look at histaglobin.
Tap water is already diluted naturally.
"Potentisation" is the process that includes the dilution and shaking of the substance. This also occurs naturally in basic tap water.
So this means that basic tap water must include the properties of cocaine, semen, heroin, countless poisons, etc., etc.
-
your showing your ignorance here, his argument doesnt make sense as simple contact is not how homeopathic remedies are made. Also if the original substance is poisonous it would be curative if your statement made any sense, again you are wrong.
Im not arguing for homeopathy or accupuncture as you can see, im just exposing ignorance from people who are not qualified to even comment on the subject, the above argument shows this ignorance.
Samuel Hahnemann (The guy who came up with homeopathy) was onto something in thinking that small amounts of something that causes sickness can cure sickness, but his entire line of thinking was wrong. He reasoned that if Chicona bark cures cures Malaria, and eating the bark produces some of the effects of Malaria..ALL things that produce the effects of a disease must cure the disease. Essentially bullshit.
-
Samuel Hahnemann (The guy who came up with homeopathy) was onto something in thinking that small amounts of something that causes sickness can cure sickness, but his entire line of thinking was wrong. He reasoned that if Chicona bark cures cures Malaria, and eating the bark produces some of the effects of Malaria..ALL things that produce the effects of a disease must cure the disease. Essentially bullshit.
i know, im educated in medicine and CAM.
-
Tap water is already diluted naturally.
"Potentisation" is the process that includes the dilution and shaking of the substance. This also occurs naturally in basic tap water.
So this means that basic tap water must include the properties of cocaine, semen, heroin, countless poisons, etc., etc.
wrong again, keep trying. Acutally read what 12C is then tell me tap water is the same thing, not to mention the movement of tap water over different materials.
-
i know, im educated in medicine and CAM.
I feel bad for you. What a waste of time!
wrong again, keep trying. Acutally read what 12C is then tell me tap water is the same thing, not to mention the movement of tap water over different materials.
A 12 C dilution would likely contain just 1 molecule of the original diluted substance. Most homeopathic dilutions are much more diluted and contain no molecules at all. Tap water would be between a 4C and 100C for most substances. If homeopathy were true, Tap water would have the "attributes" of tons of poisons, cocaine, semen, and all sorts of other ungodly substances.
-
I feel bad for you. What a waste of time!
A 12 C dilution would likely contain just 1 molecule of the original diluted substance. Most homeopathic dilutions are much more diluted and contain no molecules at all. Tap water would be between a 4C and 100C for most substances. If homeopathy were true, Tap water would have the "attributes" of tons of poisons, cocaine, semen, and all sorts of other ungodly substances.
to be a GP and a ND? ignorant comments continue to flow from your mouth. Dr weil is someone i would like to model my practice after.
"Three potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann created the centesimal or "C scale", diluting a substance by a factor of 100 at each stage. The centesimal scale was favored by Hahnemann for most of his life. A 2C dilution requires a substance to be diluted to one part in one hundred, and then some of that diluted solution is diluted by a further factor of one hundred. This works out to one part of the original solution mixed into 9,999 parts (100 × 100 −1) of the diluent.[69] A 6C dilution repeats this process six times, ending up with the original material diluted by a factor of 100-6=10-12. Higher dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency. More dilute substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting remedies."
you think tap water is diluted this many times? your out of your mind. your thinking of dilution in a sense of molecules of substance in water, you see say belladonna is taken and diluted 100 times in the same water for 1C, then on an on. if you think that tap water is 100C i dont know what to say to you.
I required to know homeopathy, pharmacology, botanical medicine, nutrition, counselling,accupuncture along with orthomolecular medicine and supplementation. Of course i will be in school for 13 years but ive already completed 9 so i hardly think it will be a waste. ::)
-
to be a GP and a ND? ignorant comments continue to flow from your mouth. Dr weil is someone i would like to model my practice after.
"Three potency scales are in regular use in homeopathy. Hahnemann created the centesimal or "C scale", diluting a substance by a factor of 100 at each stage. The centesimal scale was favored by Hahnemann for most of his life. A 2C dilution requires a substance to be diluted to one part in one hundred, and then some of that diluted solution is diluted by a further factor of one hundred. This works out to one part of the original solution mixed into 9,999 parts (100 × 100 −1) of the diluent.[69] A 6C dilution repeats this process six times, ending up with the original material diluted by a factor of 100-6=10-12. Higher dilutions follow the same pattern. In homeopathy, a solution that is more dilute is described as having a higher potency. More dilute substances are considered by homeopaths to be stronger and deeper-acting remedies."
you think tap water is diluted this many times? your out of your mind. your thinking of dilution in a sense of molecules of substance in water, you see say belladonna is taken and diluted 100 times in the same water for 1C, then on an on. if you think that tap water is 100C i dont know what to say to you.
I required to know homeopathy, pharmacology, botanical medicine, nutrition, counselling,accupuncture along with orthomolecular medicine and supplementation. Of course i will be in school for 13 years but ive already completed 9 so i hardly think it will be a waste. ::)
1. If you only knew how much tap water is diluted. Did you know that the water that we drink is contains the same molecules of water that was consumed by Julius Caesar, Ramses, Ganges Khan, Adolf Hitler, George Washington, Etc.? That is how many times typical tap water is diluted, it's the same water being used over and over again for century after century in the earth's water cycle.
2. Again..If you spent so long learning about Homeopathy and Acupuncture then you have wasted a lot of your life. I pity you.
3.
(http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/images/smilies/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif)
-
I think Ben Stein is shooting VISINE into his brain instead of his "dry eyes" now.
-
1. If you only knew how much tap water is diluted. Did you know that the water that we drink is contains the same molecules of water that was consumed by Julius Caesar, Ramses, Ganges Khan, Adolf Hitler, George Washington, Etc.? That is how many times typical tap water is diluted, it's the same water being used over and over again for century after century in the earth's water cycle.
2. Again..If you spent so long learning about Homeopathy and Acupuncture then you have wasted a lot of your life. I pity you.
3.
(http://www.reefsanctuary.com/forums/images/smilies/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif)
i have spent a couple of classes learning it, and according to the research and medical school accupuncture has merit, dont be so close minded. the other years i spent getting a degree in psychology/neuroscience and learning medicine, you know anatomy, immunology,biochemistry aka science, you should try it.
2. your pretty much stating what richard dawkins did in his book,re-cycle much? not the same thing, again read about homeopathy. serial dilution and percussion is how it is made with the same exact water, not even close to mixing water, mixing substances etc...
3. your wrong, hence the continued discussion.
-
i have spent a couple of classes learning it, and according to the research and medical school accupuncture has merit, dont be so close minded. the other years i spent getting a degree in psychology/neuroscience and learning medicine, you know anatomy, immunology,biochemistry aka science, you should try it.
2. your pretty much stating what richard dawkins did in his book,re-cycle much? not the same thing, again read about homeopathy. serial dilution and percussion is how it is made with the same exact water, not even close to mixing water, mixing substances etc...
3. your wrong, hence the continued discussion.
Just because I don't believe in bullshit quackery doesn't mean I am closed minded.
I don't know what Richard Dawkins stated in what book. Has Dawkins ever discussed homeopathy?
-
i have spent a couple of classes learning it, and according to the research and medical school accupuncture has merit, dont be so close minded. the other years i spent getting a degree in psychology/neuroscience and learning medicine, you know anatomy, immunology,biochemistry aka science, you should try it.
2. your pretty much stating what richard dawkins did in his book,re-cycle much? not the same thing, again read about homeopathy. serial dilution and percussion is how it is made with the same exact water, not even close to mixing water, mixing substances etc...
3. your wrong, hence the continued discussion.
...classic, just classic.
You have to shake it to make the magic happen!
The water molecules, zipping around at thousands of miles an hour, somehow "know" when they've been shaken by a person preparing a homeopathic remedy... very distinct from the shaking that happens when those same water molecules tumble down a waterfall; through a tap; fall as rain; are pissed into a toilet etc. etc.
What is wrong with these people... deliberately deluding themselves.
The Luke
-
...classic, just classic.
You have to shake it to make the magic happen!
The water molecules, zipping around at thousands of miles an hour, somehow "know" when they've been shaken by a person preparing a homeopathic remedy... very distinct from the shaking that happens when those same water molecules tumble down a waterfall; through a tap; fall as rain; are pissed into a toilet etc. etc.
What is wrong with these people... deliberately deluding themselves.
The Luke
i agree, i beleive homeopathy to be garbage, i havent said otherwise, some variants may be effective but homeopathy has quackery written all over it. I'm simply arguing that you guys are misrepresenting what it states, and how remedies are made,basically that your above argument is flawed.
Homeopathy in itself is logical, but is not based on what we know of medicine.
-
Just because I don't believe in bullshit quackery doesn't mean I am closed minded.
I don't know what Richard Dawkins stated in what book. Has Dawkins ever discussed homeopathy?
i presented you with peer reviewed published articles on accupuncture, i have told you that my medical school has an accupuncture course now and you think you are not close minded? Im the most critical person i know, I doubt the monoamine theory of depression, i think psychology and freud, piaget,erickson etc.. are/is bullshit and useless, i think we are to clean and need more parasites, bacteria etc... i however will use whatever works to make sick people healthy, to quote hahnemann "the physicians highest, his only calling is to make the sick healthy". I agree, that is why i wont use homeopathy in my practice, its to eractic, to unpredictable and accepted methods with sound scientific data exist. I just want to have a bigger toolbox and if i could i would choose not to study homeopathy, but the other courses i want like clinical nutrition, herb drug interaction, bot med, and advanced biochemistry and counselling are grouped with it.
if accupuncture offers relief how is it quackery. Caveman didnt need to know about oxidation to be burned by fire. The mechanism may be pharmacological, energetic,fairies,santa claus i dont care, that shit is epiphenomenal to the paramount use, as a therapeutic tool. To brush it aside because the common mechanism may be outside our current paradigm while still being effective is the definition of close minded.
i was referring to your quote about water being recycled and you mentioning certain historical figures, dawkins did this exact same thing in The God Delusion, bit of a coincidence.
-
...classic, just classic.
You have to shake it to make the magic happen!
The water molecules, zipping around at thousands of miles an hour, somehow "know" when they've been shaken by a person preparing a homeopathic remedy... very distinct from the shaking that happens when those same water molecules tumble down a waterfall; through a tap; fall as rain; are pissed into a toilet etc. etc.
What is wrong with these people... deliberately deluding themselves.
The Luke
if you want a good laugh at homeopathy look up imponderables and miasms, the shit gets more wild as you read on. Imponderables are remedies made by immaterial things, like moonlight. I shit you not, fucking north star remedy exists :o :D
-
i presented you with peer reviewed published articles on accupuncture, i have told you that my medical school has an accupuncture course now and you think you are not close minded?
Yes. I'm very open minded.
Im the most critical person i know,
::)
I doubt the monoamine theory of depression, i think psychology and freud, piaget,erickson etc.. are/is bullshit
I'm sorry, but denying science and accepting pseudoscience doesn't make you critical. It makes you an idiot.
if accupuncture offers relief how is it quackery.
Because its principles are false.
Caveman didnt need to know about oxidation to be burned by fire. The mechanism may be pharmacological, energetic,fairies,santa claus i dont care, that shit is epiphenomenal to the paramount use, as a therapeutic tool. To brush it aside because the common mechanism may be outside our current paradigm while still being effective is the definition of close minded.
The mechanism isn't beyond our understand. Scientists know how and why sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain.
i was referring to your quote about water being recycled and you mentioning certain historical figures, dawkins did this exact same thing in The God Delusion, bit of a coincidence.
I don't remember seeing that in the God delusion.
-
Yes. I'm very open minded.
::)
I'm sorry, but denying science and accepting pseudoscience doesn't make you critical. It makes you an idiot.
The mechanism isn't beyond our understand. Scientists know how and why sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain.
I don't remember seeing that in the God delusion.
"I'm sorry, but denying science and accepting pseudoscience doesn't make you critical. It makes you an idiot."
. Please give me your thoughts on the monoamine theory of depression and why the development of such drugs are done so in a poor manner. SSRIS are based on false principles, wrong again chief. I beleive in everything that has been peer reviewed and doesnt stretch credulity. I dont think you want to get into a scientific discussion here, so far you have presented no evidence while i have. Your statement above is also considered character assasination as i said i didnt beleive in homeopathy, However i beleive accupuncture may be effective based on the research, how does your quote above hold any truth?
"Because its principles are false."
first off you dont even have a working knowledge of what your talking about, secondly provide some evidence. I want say if i agree or not but if you want to be scientific please provide peer reviewed research to support your statements, i will do so from now on.
"The mechanism isn't beyond our understand. Scientists know how and why sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain."
i didnt say it was another mis representation of what i said. As for your second statement prove it, also, if the theory is true then how does it work for nausea like the study above? does it bind to serotonergic receptors in the intestines like ginger, does it simply negate sensation in the stomach etc... how does it cause sedation and alterated heart stroke volume, there are also more exmaples of things it has been studied in. Your simpleton theory is weak at best. Also i doubt you have any knowledge of the endogenous opiate receptor, its densities in particular areas, time it takes to act etc.. Please provide evidence for your theory and how it works on other areas besides pain.
"I don't remember seeing that in the God delusion. "
he talked about water being recycled and us by the law of probability possibly drinking water from the bladder of julius caesar etc.. i can give you the page and exact quote if you like.
"Yes. I'm very open minded."
does accupuncture have a place in modern medicine, yes or no.
-
"I'm sorry, but denying science and accepting pseudoscience doesn't make you critical. It makes you an idiot."
. Please give me your thoughts on the monoamine theory of depression and why the development of such drugs are done so in a poor manner. SSRIS are based on false principles, wrong again chief. I beleive in everything that has been peer reviewed and doesnt stretch credulity. I dont think you want to get into a scientific discussion here, so far you have presented no evidence while i have. Your statement above is also considered character assasination as i said i didnt beleive in homeopathy, However i beleive accupuncture may be effective based on the research, how does your quote above hold any truth?
"Because its principles are false."
first off you dont even have a working knowledge of what your talking about, secondly provide some evidence. I want say if i agree or not but if you want to be scientific please provide peer reviewed research to support your statements, i will do so from now on.
"The mechanism isn't beyond our understand. Scientists know how and why sticking needles into one's skin relieves pain."
i didnt say it was another mis representation of what i said. As for your second statement prove it, also, if the theory is true then how does it work for nausea like the study above? does it bind to serotonergic receptors in the intestines like ginger, does it simply negate sensation in the stomach etc... how does it cause sedation and alterated heart stroke volume, there are also more exmaples of things it has been studied in. Your simpleton theory is weak at best. Also i doubt you have any knowledge of the endogenous opiate receptor, its densities in particular areas, time it takes to act etc.. Please provide evidence for your theory and how it works on other areas besides pain.
"I don't remember seeing that in the God delusion. "
he talked about water being recycled and us by the law of probability possibly drinking water from the bladder of julius caesar etc.. i can give you the page and exact quote if you like.
"Yes. I'm very open minded."
does accupuncture have a place in modern medicine, yes or no.
I'm not going to argue with you on the issue any longer. I certainly don't want to get into arguing about depression either. I've already stated what it is that I believe about homeopathy and acupuncture, and if you read my posts you will see my stance. I don't want to get involved in a long debate about something like that though, I just don't feel like it. I doubt I would be able to convince you anyway. My belief is that homeopathy can't possibly work. That's it. My belief about acupuncture reducing nausea is that it does it through some set of chemicals or another secreted in the body due to the needles being stuck into the skin. Whether it is beta-endorphins or the Adrenocorticotropic Hormone causing some inhibition of the Chemoreceptor trigger or vomiting areas of the brain or some similar mechanism, the cause of it reducing things like nausea is purely biological and does not result from the needles acting on some bio-energy or electro fields or whatnot.
I do remember now about Dawkins talking about water that Caesar drank or the Breath of Caesar.
-
I'm not going to argue with you on the issue any longer. I certainly don't want to get into arguing about depression either. I've already stated what it is that I believe about homeopathy and acupuncture, and if you read my posts you will see my stance. I don't want to get involved in a long debate about something like that though, I just don't feel like it. I doubt I would be able to convince you anyway. My belief is that homeopathy can't possibly work. That's it. My belief about acupuncture reducing nausea is that it does it through some set of chemicals or another secreted in the body due to the needles being stuck into the skin. Whether it is beta-endorphins or the Adrenocorticotropic Hormone causing some inhibition of the Chemoreceptor trigger or vomiting areas of the brain or some similar mechanism, the cause of it reducing things like nausea is purely biological and does not result from the needles acting on some bio-energy or electro fields or whatnot.
I do remember now about Dawkins talking about water that Caesar drank or the Breath of Caesar.
wait a minute, i said homeopathy was bunk i was simply arguing that the arguments you were using against it are not sound. On top of that i said accupuncture likely works through a physical mechanism, exactly what you stated above. I think the needles have an effect on the nervous system which alters our physiology which creates the effect. I dont beleive in chi, i dont beleive in homeopathy, chiropractors that claim manipulations can cure disease or religion :D
i also think i have wasted my time studying homeopathy but i have to in order to obtain the official title which would allow me to have a dual clinic, i know you dont care about this but im just getting at the fact that i dont disagree with you, i just think endorphins cannot account for all the effects. Something else is involved and i would theorize that needles have different effects in different places on our physiology simply due to high amounts of tissue,proximity to organs, high numbers of ganglion etc...
I dont want to argue this any further. I really just dont like The Luke so i wanted to argue with him, you know he hunts big foot LMAO......
its kind of ironic that a guy hunts big foot yet makes fun of homeopathy for being pseudo science and quackery. Jesus, the people in this world.
-
wait a minute, i said homeopathy was bunk i was simply arguing that the arguments you were using against it are not sound. On top of that i said accupuncture likely works through a physical mechanism, exactly what you stated above. I think the needles have an effect on the nervous system which alters our physiology which creates the effect. I dont beleive in chi, i dont beleive in homeopathy, chiropractors that claim manipulations can cure disease or religion :D
i also think i have wasted my time studying homeopathy but i have to in order to obtain the official title which would allow me to have a dual clinic, i know you dont care about this but im just getting at the fact that i dont disagree with you, i just think endorphins cannot account for all the effects. Something else is involved and i would theorize that needles have different effects in different places on our physiology simply due to high amounts of tissue,proximity to organs, high numbers of ganglion etc...
I dont want to argue this any further. I really just dont like The Luke so i wanted to argue with him, you know he hunts big foot LMAO......
its kind of ironic that a guy hunts big foot yet makes fun of homeopathy for being pseudo science and quackery. Jesus, the people in this world.
There are all types of "crazy" in this world. Bigfoot hunters are just one of many.
-
I dont want to argue this any further. I really just dont like The Luke so i wanted to argue with him, you know he hunts big foot LMAO......
its kind of ironic that a guy hunts big foot yet makes fun of homeopathy for being pseudo science and quackery. Jesus, the people in this world.
There are all types of "crazy" in this world. Bigfoot hunters are just one of many.
...the skepticism is commendable, but ill-informed.
Even Jane Goodall (the chimp lady) has come out on the side of Bigfoot existing.
At this moment the evidence includes footprints; handprints; fingerprints (verified by several primate dermatoglyphics experts); video and self consistent statistical evidence... oh, and I almost forgot the fossil evidence (Gigantopithecus blackii).
At least I did a little research on homeopathy before I came to a conclusion.
The Luke
-
...the skepticism is commendable, but ill-informed.
Even Jane Goodall (the chimp lady) has come out on the side of Bigfoot existing.
At this moment the evidence includes footprints; handprints; fingerprints (verified by several primate dermatoglyphics experts); video and self consistent statistical evidence... oh, and I almost forgot the fossil evidence (Gigantopithecus blackii).
At least I did a little research on homeopathy before I came to a conclusion.
The Luke
I really don't care if Jane Goodall thinks that Bigfoot exists. Footprints, handprints and fingerprints can easily be faked or misinterpreted. The fact that several experts verify them to be primate prints, of origins that they don't know, doesn't prove that they are indeed bigfoot's. I know that there are a lot more experts who doubt the existence of bigfoot than who believe it, many more.
Gigantopithecus and Gigantopithecus blacki were real live primates that existed, and co-existed with homo-sapiens tens of thousands of years ago, but there is no evidence they are still alive. The most recent verified fossils from either species are very very old.
I have researched homeopathy as well as Bigfoot, UFOs, the Chupacabra, ghosts, etc. I know that if there were a species of ape similar to the Bigfoot then it would have been discovered already, high quality pictures taken, and it documented. All of the photographs are fuzzy and low quality, to an extent which is comical, all of the evidence has been proven to be easily faked or misinterpreted, and the eyewitness accounts are interesting, but hardly reliable, since people, especially non-experts, often misinterpret wild animals or their signs, and some people just make things up, like Patterson and Gimlin.
Most people don't realize that there are hoards of scientists who study wildlife on all parts of the globe, in even the most remove places, and are all trying to find even the smallest and most obscure new species, and also study minute details of known obscure species in the most remote parts of the planet. The chances of several populations of human sized (or larger) primates existing and going under the radar of all of these scientists and not being totally verified yet is impossible. Maybe 70 or 80 years ago, but not today.
The only time that large mammals are newly discovered today are when they are often indistinguishable from similar species and they are discovered to be a separate species. Another important point is that Bigfoot seems to exist on most parts of the world, including North America, where large primates have not historically lived. The only primates native to N.America are humans, and they migrated here a few ten thousand years ago, so that would mean that bigfoot must have mirrored the migration of the humans at the same time that it was possible? Spreading all throughout North and South America, but still leaving no verifiable fossil evidence? The most recent Gigantopithecus fossils are from a few hundred thousand years ago and are in Asia. Why don't we find Gigantopithecus fossils in North America? Especially any from the past 10,000 years? Do Bigfoot fossils all somehow vanish magically from the past 10,000 or even 1000 years in North America and everywhere else in the world?
Essentially the whole idea that a Bigfoot exists, or has existed after 100,000 years is highly unlikely. The idea that it has existed in the last 1,000 years and still exists today is essentially impossible.
-
liberalisimo,
You must have been bitterly disappointed by:
-the 2003 discovery of the Bili Ape (giant 6' 300 lb chimp) in Congo
-the 2003 discovery of 12,000 year old "Hobbit" fossils (Homo Floresiensis) currently referred to as the cryptid Orang Pendek (obviously still extant)
-the 2007 discovery of 600 year old new variant hominid skeletons dubbed the "Palau Tribe"
-the 2008 discovery of a previously unknown population of 80,000 lowland gorillas in Congo
...you are simply wrong if you think there are armies of scientists exploring the worlds wildernesses. It simply isn't happening.
Happy Googling.
The Luke
-
liberalisimo,
You must have been bitterly disappointed by:
-the 2003 discovery of the Bili Ape (giant 6' 300 lb chimp) in Congo
-the 2003 discovery of 12,000 year old "Hobbit" fossils (Homo Floresiensis) currently referred to as the cryptid Orang Pendek (obviously still extant)
-the 2007 discovery of 600 year old new variant hominid skeletons dubbed the "Palau Tribe"
-the 2008 discovery of a previously unknown population of 80,000 lowland gorillas in Congo
...you are simply wrong if you think there are armies of scientists exploring the worlds wildernesses. It simply isn't happening.
Happy Googling.
The Luke
- The Billyape was known to exist as far back as a century. It just wasn't discovered until recently that it was a separate species from the Chimpanzee (and they are rarely 6 feet tall, 5'6" from what I've read mostly). The main reason that real research hasn't been possible is due to the politics of the area. This isn't an issue in most of the parts of the world that the bigfoot is said to exist.
-The 2003 discovery of Homo Floreniensis really does not compare. They were discovered in a cave on an isolated island, basically. The fossils are all over 10,000 years old and there is no evidence that they are still alive.
- I've never heard about the "Palau Tribe". Got a link?
- To be fair, around 100,000 gorilla individuals were estimated based on nest samplings for a large area of land, previously thought to hold lesser numbers. The scientists who came up with this number didn't go and see a huge number of 100,000 gorillas roaming around. Scientists knew that there were gorillas there, but until then, hadn't come up with an accurate number and this recent estimation was much higher than previously thought. To compare this to the idea that there is a population of giant hominids living in areas such as N.America, an unknown species or species thought to have gone extinct 100,000 years ago in Asia mind you, is really incomparable. Also notable is the fact that this area has been rife with war in the previous years and only recently have scientists been able to closely examine it. This isn't the American northwest by any stretch of the imagination.
I do know that there are tons of PHD students and undergraduates stationed in all parts of the globe studying even the most obscure creatures, hoping to become famous by discovering something new. I find it impossible for there to be a population, even a tiny tiny one, living in North America, or even Asia, of unknown large primates without modern bones or a body or even a live individual turning up somewhere. Not even a good quality picture that isn't an obvious fake? Very strange indeed.
-
I realize we're hijacking the thread here, but who really cares about homeopathy...
Liberalisimo,
Your opinion is one shared by many zoologists, but still not one that reflects the reality on the ground. Field research has taken a backseat to laboratory analysis and paper publication in recent years.
Many, many large mammals go unrecorded... and unwitnessed.
-the snow leopard (although recorded) is only videoed in the wild once every twenty years or so
-the American wolverine has never been videoed or photographed in the wild (despite bodies being recovered)
-vast swathes of North America are completely unrecorded
-Sasquatch bodies are recovered, but it only happens every century or so and hasn't happened since 1894 (the "Jacko" case)
-an animal matching the description of the "Hobbit Man" is seen regularly in Sumatra (orang pendek), even western biologists and travel writers have seen it up close
-the Patterson Footage is genuine, no such footage of the Bili Ape exists
-the Bili Ape might have been "known" as you put it, for a century or so... but no solid evidence existed till 2003
-NO fossil evidence exists for the orangutan; gorilla or chimp (some possible chimp jaws have been found), Giganto fossils DO represent Bigfoot in the fossil record in my opinion
-the footprints aren't easily hoaxed, anatomists have declared them genuine
-the fingerprint evidence is beyond reproach
...The last few Native Americans to hold out from the white man lived close to the white populations they regularly raided without ever being discovered. In fact only one of them was seen, ONCE, at night during the century or so that they evaded capture.
A breeding population of 2,000 to 6,000 Squatch could easily hide out in North America without ever being found... www.bfro.net have all the information you might need (including new thermal videotape).
Recommended reading:
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Dr Jeffrey Meldrum
...there is also a DVD of the same name that demonstrates the authenticity of the Patterson Footage.
The Luke
-
I realize we're hijacking the thread here, but who really cares about homeopathy...
Liberalisimo,
Your opinion is one shared by many zoologists, but still not one that reflects the reality on the ground. Field research has taken a backseat to laboratory analysis and paper publication in recent years.
Many, many large mammals go unrecorded... and unwitnessed.
-the snow leopard (although recorded) is only videoed in the wild once every twenty years or so
-the American wolverine has never been videoed or photographed in the wild (despite bodies being recovered)
-vast swathes of North America are completely unrecorded
-Sasquatch bodies are recovered, but it only happens every century or so and hasn't happened since 1894 (the "Jacko" case)
-an animal matching the description of the "Hobbit Man" is seen regularly in Sumatra (orang pendek), even western biologists and travel writers have seen it up close
-the Patterson Footage is genuine, no such footage of the Bili Ape exists
-the Bili Ape might have been "known" as you put it, for a century or so... but no solid evidence existed till 2003
-NO fossil evidence exists for the orangutan; gorilla or chimp (some possible chimp jaws have been found), Giganto fossils DO represent Bigfoot in the fossil record in my opinion
-the footprints aren't easily hoaxed, anatomists have declared them genuine
-the fingerprint evidence is beyond reproach
...The last few Native Americans to hold out from the white man lived close to the white populations they regularly raided without ever being discovered. In fact only one of them was seen, ONCE, at night during the century or so that they evaded capture.
A breeding population of 2,000 to 6,000 Squatch could easily hide out in North America without ever being found... www.bfro.net have all the information you might need (including new thermal videotape).
Recommended reading:
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Dr Jeffrey Meldrum
...there is also a DVD of the same name that demonstrates the authenticity of the Patterson Footage.
The Luke
I'm not going to go through each example you explain and tell you how it doesn't compare to the idea of a Bigfoot living in N.America or even Asia. I don't know where you get the idea that no Chimp or Gorilla fossils have ever been found, because they have. Also, there are plenty of examples of modern bones and bodies of Chimps or Gorillas found who were killed by poachers or died naturally, Zero for Bigfoot. Bigfoot footprints are easy faked, all that one needs to do is take a footprint from a human, morph it around a bit, increase the size using molds and cast it into a 15 or 20 inch replica.
The problem with some scientists is that, when examining things, they tend to assume that it isn't a fake. Some scientists aren't used to being faked and tricked and so they aren't very skeptical in that regard. I know that a lot of scientists who were shown Uri Geller's spoon bending trick were convinced that it was real, since they simply weren't used to being tricked and fooled in such a way. This is what happens with bigfoot prints and whatnot. Scientists who know how easily they are faked can easily tell that they are all faked.
I live smack dab in the middle of the country, right in the woods. I frequently am an outdoors person and spent a lot of time in the wilderness. I have seen all of the large mammals native to my area, including deer, black bear, hogs, etc. It's so coincidental that, with all of the hunters and outdoors people all over the place in N.America, only a few "sightings" of bigfoot have occurred and by people who aren't the most reliable for the most part. Nothing concrete. No bodies. Only fuzzy pictures. Only fuzzy "thermal images"? No real verifiable scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals proving that they exist? Just sketchy anecdotes and blurry pictures?
I'm sorry, I don't buy it. You shouldn't either. All of your examples don't even compare or are simply false. And if you truly believe that the Patterson film is real, even though Gimlin himself has said that it could have been a hoax and some people have come forth admitting to be part of the hoax, you must really be gullible.
BTW, Isn't this a N.American wolverine in the wild?
http://www.arkive.org/media/F43B1065-D262-429E-8931-94228E69AB91/Presentation.Large/photo.jpg (http://www.arkive.org/media/F43B1065-D262-429E-8931-94228E69AB91/Presentation.Large/photo.jpg)
Here is another in California.
(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/wolverine/images/20080313_Moriarty_2.jpg)
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news08/08022.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/10/sierra.wolverine.ap/index.html
-
bigfoot LMAO.....
if such a creature existed direct evidence that is not disputed would of been discovered, just like the yetti little but mythology and some ridiculous lines of evidence that stretch credulity to its breaking point exist.
-
I like the gamecamera picture, but I assume it is very recent... using the new 940 nm far-infrared LEDs (most nocturnal animals can see the old near-infrared LEDs). Up until recently (last year or two) there were no images of the American wolverine in the wild (sorry I was a bit behind the times on that factoid).
I believe the picture you posted is from Scandinavia, where long term field research yielded the only quality wildlife footage of wolverines in the wild (there are lots of images of tame/fed wolverines from nature reserves: not the same thing. The Scandinavian research took 17 years).
I admit there are lots of chimp, gorilla and orangutan bones... but I said FOSSILS. Apart from two partial FOSSILIZED jawbones (1.2 and 2.3 million years old respectively) there is NO fossil record for either the chimp; orang or gorilla.
Remember, the gorilla was a fictional creature up until 1847 or so, the mountain gorilla up until 1905 or so.
I understand your position... and am well aware of the problems surrounding Bigfoot/Sasquatch research. But some of your claims are a off base.
The footprints are not easily hoaxed... the fingerprint patterns are almost impossible to fake.
I have met and interviewed Bob Gimlin. The Patterson Footage is genuine... and every expert who has studied it agrees. The few people who have cashed in on the "Patterson Hoax" have never been able to give consistent details or been able to reproduce the film. The BBC spent $100,000 attempting to copy the footage only to end up inadvertently emphasizing the enormous bulk of the actual creature.
Scientists either dismiss or accept the evidence for Bigfoot... what you can't find is a scientist who has objectively studied the evidence and come to the same conclusion as you. That is a product of the manner in which the media treats the subject.
You'd be surprised how many experts in the field firmly believe in the existence of several species of such creatures.
Read up on it, you're clever and scientifically versed... you'll come around.
The Luke
-
I like the gamecamera picture, but I assume it is very recent... using the new 940 nm far-infrared LEDs (most nocturnal animals can see the old near-infrared LEDs). Up until recently (last year or two) there were no images of the American wolverine in the wild (sorry I was a bit behind the times on that factoid).
I believe the picture you posted is from Scandinavia, where long term field research yielded the only quality wildlife footage of wolverines in the wild (there are lots of images of tame/fed wolverines from nature reserves: not the same thing. The Scandinavian research took 17 years).
I admit there are lots of chimp, gorilla and orangutan bones... but I said FOSSILS. Apart from two partial FOSSILIZED jawbones (1.2 and 2.3 million years old respectively) there is NO fossil record for either the chimp; orang or gorilla.
Remember, the gorilla was a fictional creature up until 1847 or so, the mountain gorilla up until 1905 or so.
I understand your position... and am well aware of the problems surrounding Bigfoot/Sasquatch research. But some of your claims are a off base.
The footprints are not easily hoaxed... the fingerprint patterns are almost impossible to fake.
I have met and interviewed Bob Gimlin. The Patterson Footage is genuine... and every expert who has studied it agrees. The few people who have cashed in on the "Patterson Hoax" have never been able to give consistent details or been able to reproduce the film. The BBC spent $100,000 attempting to copy the footage only to end up inadvertently emphasizing the enormous bulk of the actual creature.
Scientists either dismiss or accept the evidence for Bigfoot... what you can't find is a scientist who has objectively studied the evidence and come to the same conclusion as you. That is a product of the manner in which the media treats the subject.
You'd be surprised how many experts in the field firmly believe in the existence of several species of such creatures.
Read up on it, you're clever and scientifically versed... you'll come around.
The Luke
Look, We're living in 2008 here, not the 1850s. Essentially all of the world has been explored and there are over 6 billion people on the planet. If bigfoot existed then we'd have found a body by now. This is to be sure of. You claim that "every expert who studied" the Gimlin film agrees that it is genuine? This is false, just like EVERY other claim you've been making. Most of the people who analyzed it were unable to tell much of anything from it, obviously the hoaxers intention, and the people examining it have done it from a perspective not taking into account all of the things that could be done to trick them. They evaluate things like the "stride" of the guy in the suit and claim that no human could possibly walk like that. It's nonsense, of course, and both the guy who designed the suit AND the person who was wearing the suit have come forward.(It's patently obvious that it is a guy in a suit, just looking at the video shows that it's just a guy in a suit, and all of the supposed "muscle movements" are likely due to the horrible quality of the video rather than some intricate design of the costume) Neither had anything to gain from admitting the hoax, and only things to lose, such as the costume designer had a business. Now, you might still want to doubt that it was a hoax, but common sense tells us otherwise. What is more likely, A giant ape-like bipedal creature, never verified by scientists even today, coincidentally walks in front of the camera of two people in the woods, OR it was a hoax. Hmm...
When scientists deal with animals that they think might be extinct, the longer that it takes for them to verify an individual of that species exists, the more likely it becomes that the animal is actually extinct. After a certain point in time, it becomes more and more absurd to continue thinking that the animal is still alive. Scientists KNOW that Wholly Mammoths are extinct, even though there are still people who claim to see them here and there. There are even people who claim to see a Dinosaur in the African Congo and a monster in the Loch Ness. None exist.
As of right now, year 2008, belief in Bigfoot is borderline craziness. If you are cognizant of the scientific data and methods, still believing in a Bigfoot in this day and age is craziness.
If they existed, there would be DOZENS of bodies discovered by now, the scientific community would agree on their existence, we would have a few in captivity, we would know about their behavior, have pictures of them, find evidence ALL OVER the place. This is how it is with even the most rarest and obscure animals that are much much smaller than Bigfoot supposedly is. There is NO evidence for Bigfoot. There are things people claim to be evidence, such as obviously faked footprints, but there is no real sold scientific evidence. No bodies, no captive live individuals, no good photographs or video, no genuine and verifiable body parts or bones, nothing but blurry pictures and faked footprints.
-
Liberalisimo,
I take your points and I respect your "default-skepticims" standpoint... the evidence for the existence of extant hominids, while conclusive in my opinion, is not yet incontrovertible.
However, you are woefully misinformed regarding the current state of the evidence. Much of what you quoted as fact, while common knowledge, is far from the truth.
Far better informed scientists who have studied the evidence, even experts such as David Attenborough; (Dr) Jane Goodall; Dr John Bildernagel; the late Dr Grover Krantz; Dr Wolf Henner Fahrenbach; Dr Jeffrey Meldrum and many others (even Leakey himself) at the cutting edge of anthropological/primatological research have come to the conclusion that these elusive creatures DO exist.
What you can't find is an expert in the field who has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that NO such creature(s) exist.
For the record:
-the Patterson Footage has NEVER been shown to be a hoax (all the experts who have analysed it have weighed in on the side of the footage depicting a real animal... the public remain unconvinced as they have only ever seen the poor quality fifth generation Betamax copy of the original film used in newscasts)
-dozens of people have claimed to have been involved in the supposed hoax: none of their stories have ever panned out (in fact all have been shown to be lying). Whereas, Patterson, despite being terminal with cancer, spent every penny he made from the sale of the film (and the rest of his life) attempting to get better footage... hardly the actions of a hoaxer. Gimlin has stuck to his story and is still involved in the search for these creatures in his eighties.
-no costume maker has ever come forward with a replica of the supposed costume
(John Chambers of "Planet of the Apes" fame did spread a false rumour that he was behind the Patterson creature, but in his retirement years he gave several interviews admitting that this was merely for advertising purposes; his own opinion was that the footage represented a real animal, as he couldn't have made such a costume himself. I think this case is what you are referring to).
-no one has ever been able to demonstrate a method for reproducing the footprints (gorilla expert Dr Estaban Sarmiento has tried this many times without success). Professor of Anatomy (Idaho State University) Dr Jeffrey Meldrum has written many scientific papers detailing the bone structure and physiology involved (and how it indicates the lineage of such creatures).
-many samples of "unknown primate" hair has been recovered from North America; scientific papers have been written about this by many experts (Henner Fahrenbach for example). Sadly, like gorilla hair, it remains resistant to DNA analysis due to its morphological structure (ie: no medulla)
...but if you believe North America has been fully explored, and that corpses of every type of animal are routinely recovered, then you need to read up a little more.
I'm not a "true-believer" or one prone to magical thinking, I'm a trained scientist (BS in Experimental Physics) and I'm telling you, you are simply wrong in this regard. Read the opinions of the experts in the field.
You don't honestly think hoaxers went to the trouble of adding sweat pores and non-human primate dermatoglyphic (fingerprint) patterns to hundreds of faked footprints found all over North America in the 1950s so that the top primate fingerprint expert (Jimmy Chilcutt, CSI with the Austen Texas Police Department and FBI fingerprint consultant) could analyse the casts and come to the conclusion that they represent a living population of unclassified primates in 2003... do you?
Those same non-human dermatoglyphic patterns are consistent across the entire body of purported Sasquatch/Bigfoot footprint casts... as are the median foot lengths; median heel widths; median foot widths; relations of foot proportions etc etc. So much so that scientific papers have been written (Fahrenbach) detailing the fact that every possible statistical tool applied to Bigfoot evidence SUPPORTS the existence of a (small) breeding population.
The hoax explanation is far more fantastic than the simple truth; there is a clandestine hominid extant in North America.
The Luke
PS... I think we're perpetrating a thread hijack here.
-
Liberalisimo,
I take your points and I respect your "default-skepticims" standpoint... the evidence for the existence of extant hominids, while conclusive in my opinion, is not yet incontrovertible.
However, you are woefully misinformed regarding the current state of the evidence. Much of what you quoted as fact, while common knowledge, is far from the truth.
Far better informed scientists who have studied the evidence, even experts such as David Attenborough; (Dr) Jane Goodall; Dr John Bildernagel; the late Dr Grover Krantz; Dr Wolf Henner Fahrenbach; Dr Jeffrey Meldrum and many others (even Leakey himself) at the cutting edge of anthropological/primatological research have come to the conclusion that these elusive creatures DO exist.
What you can't find is an expert in the field who has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that NO such creature(s) exist.
For the record:
-the Patterson Footage has NEVER been shown to be a hoax (all the experts who have analysed it have weighed in on the side of the footage depicting a real animal... the public remain unconvinced as they have only ever seen the poor quality fifth generation Betamax copy of the original film used in newscasts)
-dozens of people have claimed to have been involved in the supposed hoax: none of their stories have ever panned out (in fact all have been shown to be lying). Whereas, Patterson, despite being terminal with cancer, spent every penny he made from the sale of the film (and the rest of his life) attempting to get better footage... hardly the actions of a hoaxer. Gimlin has stuck to his story and is still involved in the search for these creatures in his eighties.
-no costume maker has ever come forward with a replica of the supposed costume
(John Chambers of "Planet of the Apes" fame did spread a false rumour that he was behind the Patterson creature, but in his retirement years he gave several interviews admitting that this was merely for advertising purposes; his own opinion was that the footage represented a real animal, as he couldn't have made such a costume himself. I think this case is what you are referring to).
-no one has ever been able to demonstrate a method for reproducing the footprints (gorilla expert Dr Estaban Sarmiento has tried this many times without success). Professor of Anatomy (Idaho State University) Dr Jeffrey Meldrum has written many scientific papers detailing the bone structure and physiology involved (and how it indicates the lineage of such creatures).
-many samples of "unknown primate" hair has been recovered from North America; scientific papers have been written about this by many experts (Henner Fahrenbach for example). Sadly, like gorilla hair, it remains resistant to DNA analysis due to its morphological structure (ie: no medulla)
...but if you believe North America has been fully explored, and that corpses of every type of animal are routinely recovered, then you need to read up a little more.
I'm not a "true-believer" or one prone to magical thinking, I'm a trained scientist (BS in Experimental Physics) and I'm telling you, you are simply wrong in this regard. Read the opinions of the experts in the field.
You don't honestly think hoaxers went to the trouble of adding sweat pores and non-human primate dermatoglyphic (fingerprint) patterns to hundreds of faked footprints found all over North America in the 1950s so that the top primate fingerprint expert (Jimmy Chilcutt, CSI with the Austen Texas Police Department and FBI fingerprint consultant) could analyse the casts and come to the conclusion that they represent a living population of unclassified primates in 2003... do you?
Those same non-human dermatoglyphic patterns are consistent across the entire body of purported Sasquatch/Bigfoot footprint casts... as are the median foot lengths; median heel widths; median foot widths; relations of foot proportions etc etc. So much so that scientific papers have been written (Fahrenbach) detailing the fact that every possible statistical tool applied to Bigfoot evidence SUPPORTS the existence of a (small) breeding population.
The hoax explanation is far more fantastic than the simple truth; there is a clandestine hominid extant in North America.
The Luke
PS... I think we're perpetrating a thread hijack here.
I will highjack the thread for you. Do you like big jugs on slim Asian bodies? ;D
-
Liberalisimo,
I take your points and I respect your "default-skepticims" standpoint... the evidence for the existence of extant hominids, while conclusive in my opinion, is not yet incontrovertible.
However, you are woefully misinformed regarding the current state of the evidence. Much of what you quoted as fact, while common knowledge, is far from the truth.
Far better informed scientists who have studied the evidence, even experts such as David Attenborough; (Dr) Jane Goodall; Dr John Bildernagel; the late Dr Grover Krantz; Dr Wolf Henner Fahrenbach; Dr Jeffrey Meldrum and many others (even Leakey himself) at the cutting edge of anthropological/primatological research have come to the conclusion that these elusive creatures DO exist.
What you can't find is an expert in the field who has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that NO such creature(s) exist.
For the record:
-the Patterson Footage has NEVER been shown to be a hoax (all the experts who have analysed it have weighed in on the side of the footage depicting a real animal... the public remain unconvinced as they have only ever seen the poor quality fifth generation Betamax copy of the original film used in newscasts)
-dozens of people have claimed to have been involved in the supposed hoax: none of their stories have ever panned out (in fact all have been shown to be lying). Whereas, Patterson, despite being terminal with cancer, spent every penny he made from the sale of the film (and the rest of his life) attempting to get better footage... hardly the actions of a hoaxer. Gimlin has stuck to his story and is still involved in the search for these creatures in his eighties.
-no costume maker has ever come forward with a replica of the supposed costume
(John Chambers of "Planet of the Apes" fame did spread a false rumour that he was behind the Patterson creature, but in his retirement years he gave several interviews admitting that this was merely for advertising purposes; his own opinion was that the footage represented a real animal, as he couldn't have made such a costume himself. I think this case is what you are referring to).
-no one has ever been able to demonstrate a method for reproducing the footprints (gorilla expert Dr Estaban Sarmiento has tried this many times without success). Professor of Anatomy (Idaho State University) Dr Jeffrey Meldrum has written many scientific papers detailing the bone structure and physiology involved (and how it indicates the lineage of such creatures).
-many samples of "unknown primate" hair has been recovered from North America; scientific papers have been written about this by many experts (Henner Fahrenbach for example). Sadly, like gorilla hair, it remains resistant to DNA analysis due to its morphological structure (ie: no medulla)
...but if you believe North America has been fully explored, and that corpses of every type of animal are routinely recovered, then you need to read up a little more.
I'm not a "true-believer" or one prone to magical thinking, I'm a trained scientist (BS in Experimental Physics) and I'm telling you, you are simply wrong in this regard. Read the opinions of the experts in the field.
You don't honestly think hoaxers went to the trouble of adding sweat pores and non-human primate dermatoglyphic (fingerprint) patterns to hundreds of faked footprints found all over North America in the 1950s so that the top primate fingerprint expert (Jimmy Chilcutt, CSI with the Austen Texas Police Department and FBI fingerprint consultant) could analyse the casts and come to the conclusion that they represent a living population of unclassified primates in 2003... do you?
Those same non-human dermatoglyphic patterns are consistent across the entire body of purported Sasquatch/Bigfoot footprint casts... as are the median foot lengths; median heel widths; median foot widths; relations of foot proportions etc etc. So much so that scientific papers have been written (Fahrenbach) detailing the fact that every possible statistical tool applied to Bigfoot evidence SUPPORTS the existence of a (small) breeding population.
The hoax explanation is far more fantastic than the simple truth; there is a clandestine hominid extant in North America.
The Luke
PS... I think we're perpetrating a thread hijack here.
present your evidence for the existence of bigfoot.
-
present your evidence for the existence of bigfoot.
...haven't you been reading my posts?
I've explained myself fully, named the relevant academics... I even gave a reading list.
The Luke
-
Liberalisimo,
I take your points and I respect your "default-skepticims" standpoint... the evidence for the existence of extant hominids, while conclusive in my opinion, is not yet incontrovertible.
However, you are woefully misinformed regarding the current state of the evidence. Much of what you quoted as fact, while common knowledge, is far from the truth.
Far better informed scientists who have studied the evidence, even experts such as David Attenborough; (Dr) Jane Goodall; Dr John Bildernagel; the late Dr Grover Krantz; Dr Wolf Henner Fahrenbach; Dr Jeffrey Meldrum and many others (even Leakey himself) at the cutting edge of anthropological/primatological research have come to the conclusion that these elusive creatures DO exist.
What you can't find is an expert in the field who has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that NO such creature(s) exist.
For the record:
-the Patterson Footage has NEVER been shown to be a hoax (all the experts who have analysed it have weighed in on the side of the footage depicting a real animal... the public remain unconvinced as they have only ever seen the poor quality fifth generation Betamax copy of the original film used in newscasts)
-dozens of people have claimed to have been involved in the supposed hoax: none of their stories have ever panned out (in fact all have been shown to be lying). Whereas, Patterson, despite being terminal with cancer, spent every penny he made from the sale of the film (and the rest of his life) attempting to get better footage... hardly the actions of a hoaxer. Gimlin has stuck to his story and is still involved in the search for these creatures in his eighties.
-no costume maker has ever come forward with a replica of the supposed costume
(John Chambers of "Planet of the Apes" fame did spread a false rumour that he was behind the Patterson creature, but in his retirement years he gave several interviews admitting that this was merely for advertising purposes; his own opinion was that the footage represented a real animal, as he couldn't have made such a costume himself. I think this case is what you are referring to).
-no one has ever been able to demonstrate a method for reproducing the footprints (gorilla expert Dr Estaban Sarmiento has tried this many times without success). Professor of Anatomy (Idaho State University) Dr Jeffrey Meldrum has written many scientific papers detailing the bone structure and physiology involved (and how it indicates the lineage of such creatures).
-many samples of "unknown primate" hair has been recovered from North America; scientific papers have been written about this by many experts (Henner Fahrenbach for example). Sadly, like gorilla hair, it remains resistant to DNA analysis due to its morphological structure (ie: no medulla)
...but if you believe North America has been fully explored, and that corpses of every type of animal are routinely recovered, then you need to read up a little more.
I'm not a "true-believer" or one prone to magical thinking, I'm a trained scientist (BS in Experimental Physics) and I'm telling you, you are simply wrong in this regard. Read the opinions of the experts in the field.
You don't honestly think hoaxers went to the trouble of adding sweat pores and non-human primate dermatoglyphic (fingerprint) patterns to hundreds of faked footprints found all over North America in the 1950s so that the top primate fingerprint expert (Jimmy Chilcutt, CSI with the Austen Texas Police Department and FBI fingerprint consultant) could analyse the casts and come to the conclusion that they represent a living population of unclassified primates in 2003... do you?
Those same non-human dermatoglyphic patterns are consistent across the entire body of purported Sasquatch/Bigfoot footprint casts... as are the median foot lengths; median heel widths; median foot widths; relations of foot proportions etc etc. So much so that scientific papers have been written (Fahrenbach) detailing the fact that every possible statistical tool applied to Bigfoot evidence SUPPORTS the existence of a (small) breeding population.
The hoax explanation is far more fantastic than the simple truth; there is a clandestine hominid extant in North America.
The Luke
PS... I think we're perpetrating a thread hijack here.
1. Most of the scientists who study the evidence are doing so out of their own field and don't actually study anything but hoaxed footprints and flimsy anecdotes.
2. You make far too many claims without citing evidence. Where is the proof that the two people I previously cited as being involved in the Patterson hoax were lying? It's much more likely that they weren't.
3. The costume was just some basic thing, much less complex than Star Wars costumes. The distance and low quality make it seem otherwise.
4. Any idiot can make bigfoot footprints. It just requires casting a human footprint, and then recasting it over and over until it is the desired size, after deforming it all up to make it seem non-human.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html)
5. "Unknown primate hair"? Try again. Most hair samples were proven fakes, the only samples that you claim of "unknown origin" were simply too degraded to determine or the scientists failed to determine the species for some reason. This proves nothing.
People tend to OVER analyze things. Replicating and increasing the size of a human footprint and then twisting it all around to change the attributes would also change the fingerprints of it. Easy as 123. Who in the heck would rely on someone like Jimmy Chilcutt, a CSI guy, not a hominid anatomy expert, to determine that some footprint is of non-human primate origin? Crazyness!
If you really believe that it is more likely that a giant ape, never proven by science after hundreds of years, is roaming N.America or Asia in populations in the area of several hundred than it simply being bad characterizations and blatant hoaxes, then I feel sorry for you. I really do.
I don't feel like debating this anymore, it's going nowhere and you clearly have the mentality of a True Believer. The evidence for a Bigfoot is sketchy and much much more obviously faked. Anyone who still thinks that populations of several hundred giant bipedal apes are roaming around N. America, especially when scientists are able to tag and categorize even the rarest mammals and determine their populations, and also without a body ever being found, no bones, nothing but fake footprints and comically blurry pictures and video, is living in a dream world.
-
Again, you are woefully uninformed...
1. Most of the scientists who study the evidence are doing so out of their own field and don't actually study anything but hoaxed footprints and flimsy anecdotes.
...(Dr) Jane Goodall is a primatologist (chimp expert).
...Dr Jeff Meldrum is a Professor of Anatomy, specialising in foot structure as it relates to the evolution of bipedalism among hominids.
...Dr Grover Krantz was a career academic (WA Uni).
I personally know of one retired academic who has seen a Sasquatch in person.
They are working in their respective fields... fingerprints; scat; fossils (Giganto); video and audio recordings constitute the evidence so far. It's hardly a study in folklore.
2. You make far too many claims without citing evidence. Where is the proof that the two people I previously cited as being involved in the Patterson hoax were lying? It's much more likely that they weren't.
...to date, about a dozen people have come forward claiming to be the person in the suit. Yet no one has been able to reproduce the suit. Or give a consistent story. As I previously menioned, the BBC spent $100,000 attempting such a suit yet still couldn't do it.
You need to carefully re-read my previous posts.
Bob Heironimous (the latest claimant) is 5'9''... the "Patty" creature was 6'8'' to 7'2'' and 38'-40' across the shoulders (forensically measured on site by several experts and confirmed by reproduction of the film with a 6'5'' human subject retracing the path). It's musculature is consistent with a gorilla variant (barrel chest, underdeveloped pectoralis minors; high mounted trapezius; low-attaching bicep; torn outer quadricep head on the right leg (more prevalent in females); thick, high mounted glutes and overdeveloped erector spinae muscles.
I've also listed books and videos and named the respective academics involved. Your criticism is patently faulty.
3. The costume was just some basic thing, much less complex than Star Wars costumes. The distance and low quality make it seem otherwise.
...I give lectures (academics sometimes attend) in which a high resolution copy of the film always silences such claims. The musculature is starkly apparent in the seldom seen second section of the film, where the creature walks away behind the flood detritus in the river bed.
4. Any idiot can make bigfoot footprints. It just requires casting a human footprint, and then recasting it over and over until it is the desired size, after deforming it all up to make it seem non-human.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html)
...there is an open reward for anyone who can do so. Anatomists have written papers detailing the consistently non-human morphology of these prints, which is self consistent (even over time) for the species.
No one has ever been able to fake the prints, even though many engineers and skeptical scientists tried. Dr Jeff Meldrum has also discovered hand prints, body prints and climbing imprints (on slopes). He too was a skeptic when he began his investigations. He dedicates a chapter of his book to faked prints; read it.
5. "Unknown primate hair"? Try again. Most hair samples were proven fakes, the only samples that you claim of "unknown origin" were simply too degraded to determine or the scientists failed to determine the species for some reason. This proves nothing.
...the purported "Sasquatch" hair is again morphologically consistent and trichologists consider it intermediary between human and chimp hair.
People tend to OVER analyze things. Replicating and increasing the size of a human footprint and then twisting it all around to change the attributes would also change the fingerprints of it. Easy as 123. Who in the heck would rely on someone like Jimmy Chilcutt, a CSI guy, not a hominid anatomy expert, to determine that some footprint is of non-human primate origin? Crazyness!
The technique you suggest does not work, gorilla expert Dr Esteban Sarmiento (a Bigfoot skeptic) has tried it several times.
...Jimmy Chilcutt is a fingerprint consultant with the FBI too. He is also considered one of the worlds preeminent experts on primate dermatoglyphics (fingerprints) and has pioneered efforts to distinguish racial/gender identifications through fingerprints in humans (which he did by analysing all sorts of primate dermatoglyphics).
Chilcutt was also a skeptic, but was won over by the distinctively non-human pattern evidenced by the casts (transverse with longitudinal lateral ridges rather than plain transverse, as seen in humans). The dermtoglyphic pattern is consistent only with a long-toed exceedingly heavy, flat footed (mid-tarsl break) bipedal creature/hominid.
His analysis was so thorough that he was able to identify six distinct individuals responsible for the tracks that caused the 1958 Californian Bigfoot Flap. As he was working from randomly numbered casts, his identification of two different sized tracks as belonging to the same individual (identical scar patters and sweat pores), further convinced him when the a subsequent data check confirmed the smaller print predated the larger one by some twenty years and came from the same vicinity.
He literally grouped casts from all over the US and Canada together (as coming from one animal) in a double-blind pattern, only later to be fully vindicated by the geographic locations the prints came from.
Liberlisimo, if you don't want to discuss this any further, that is fine with me. But please don't insult those other reading by criticizing my judgement or knowledge of the subject.
It is obvious to everyone that your position is one of blind dismissal.
Remember, it's only been five years since a population of giant chimps was discovered in the Congo (the Bili Ape). Previous to the reporting of the late Shelley Williams the "Bondo Mystery Ape" was considered a mythical creature. Until 2003, there were no bodies; no fossils; no pictures; no video; no hair... only rumours, rumours dismissed by close-minded people like you.
I am a Bigfoot acceptor more so than a Bigfoot believer... I have studied the evidence in detail and without any other prejudice than an analytical eye.
The Luke
-
Again, you are woefully uninformed...
...(Dr) Jane Goodall is a primatologist (chimp expert).
...Dr Jeff Meldrum is a Professor of Anatomy, specialising in foot structure as it relates to the evolution of bipedalism among hominids.
...Dr Grover Krantz was a career academic (WA Uni).
I personally know of one retired academic who has seen a Sasquatch in person.
They are working in their respective fields... fingerprints; scat; fossils (Giganto); video and audio recordings constitute the evidence so far. It's hardly a study in folklore.
...to date, about a dozen people have come forward claiming to be the person in the suit. Yet no one has been able to reproduce the suit. Or give a consistent story. As I previously menioned, the BBC spent $100,000 attempting such a suit yet still couldn't do it.
You need to carefully re-read my previous posts.
Bob Heironimous (the latest claimant) is 5'9''... the "Patty" creature was 6'8'' to 7'2'' and 38'-40' across the shoulders (forensically measured on site by several experts and confirmed by reproduction of the film with a 6'5'' human subject retracing the path). It's musculature is consistent with a gorilla variant (barrel chest, underdeveloped pectoralis minors; high mounted trapezius; low-attaching bicep; torn outer quadricep head on the right leg (more prevalent in females); thick, high mounted glutes and overdeveloped erector spinae muscles.
I've also listed books and videos and named the respective academics involved. Your criticism is patently faulty.
...I give lectures (academics sometimes attend) in which a high resolution copy of the film always silences such claims. The musculature is starkly apparent in the seldom seen second section of the film, where the creature walks away behind the flood detritus in the river bed.
...there is an open reward for anyone who can do so. Anatomists have written papers detailing the consistently non-human morphology of these prints, which is self consistent (even over time) for the species.
No one has ever been able to fake the prints, even though many engineers and skeptical scientists tried. Dr Jeff Meldrum has also discovered hand prints, body prints and climbing imprints (on slopes). He too was a skeptic when he began his investigations. He dedicates a chapter of his book to faked prints; read it.
...the purported "Sasquatch" hair is again morphologically consistent and trichologists consider it intermediary between human and chimp hair.
The technique you suggest does not work, gorilla expert Dr Esteban Sarmiento (a Bigfoot skeptic) has tried it several times.
...Jimmy Chilcutt is a fingerprint consultant with the FBI too. He is also considered one of the worlds preeminent experts on primate dermatoglyphics (fingerprints) and has pioneered efforts to distinguish racial/gender identifications through fingerprints in humans (which he did by analysing all sorts of primate dermatoglyphics).
Chilcutt was also a skeptic, but was won over by the distinctively non-human pattern evidenced by the casts (transverse with longitudinal lateral ridges rather than plain transverse, as seen in humans). The dermtoglyphic pattern is consistent only with a long-toed exceedingly heavy, flat footed (mid-tarsl break) bipedal creature/hominid.
His analysis was so thorough that he was able to identify six distinct individuals responsible for the tracks that caused the 1958 Californian Bigfoot Flap. As he was working from randomly numbered casts, his identification of two different sized tracks as belonging to the same individual (identical scar patters and sweat pores), further convinced him when the a subsequent data check confirmed the smaller print predated the larger one by some twenty years and came from the same vicinity.
He literally grouped casts from all over the US and Canada together (as coming from one animal) in a double-blind pattern, only later to be fully vindicated by the geographic locations the prints came from.
Liberlisimo, if you don't want to discuss this any further, that is fine with me. But please don't insult those other reading by criticizing my judgement or knowledge of the subject.
It is obvious to everyone that your position is one of blind dismissal.
Remember, it's only been five years since a population of giant chimps was discovered in the Congo (the Bili Ape). Previous to the reporting of the late Shelley Williams the "Bondo Mystery Ape" was considered a mythical creature. Until 2003, there were no bodies; no fossils; no pictures; no video; no hair... only rumours, rumours dismissed by close-minded people like you.
I am a Bigfoot acceptor more so than a Bigfoot believer... I have studied the evidence in detail and without any other prejudice than an analytical eye.
The Luke
Your batshit crazy. are you referring to the patterson video of the person walking in the river bed? you cannot see the erector spinae as you indicate, if so post the video, you cannot clearly see bicep attachment nor the pectoralis minor. I mean i know human anatomy quite well and the pec minor is situated under the major, along with the fur i doubt you can see this shit as clearly as you claim.
Again the paucity of your evidence is underwhelming. If such a creature existed much better evidence would have been captured by now, this creature is also not excepted by the majority of scientists, just a small minority.
I cant beleive you give talks on this shit, post the better quality video if you will, i wouldnt mind seeing it.
-
Luke, I don't think I'll accomplish by arguing it any longer, except a migraine. All I can say is that day after day, when no big foots are found, your belief gets more and more crazy. I'm anything but close minded, my mind is open to the proof, and I've seen none. I know you probably have some invested monetary interest (or at least emotional) in this mumbo-jumbo, and it's been said that it's impossible to convince a man of a fact if his income relies on denying that fact. If it were truly important, I would be more persistent, but who gets hurt if a few crazies want to believe in giant ape-men living in the woods? Probably no one.
So I'm done.
-
Necrosis,
I'm sorry, but I can't post the video... the copy I have is about 2 gigs.
I'd recommend you get yourself a copy of Doug Hajicek's excellent video "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science", a high quality film-to-digital version of the Patterson Video is available in the extras. The footage most people have seen is fifth (or more) generation betamax/VHS copy of a copy of a copy etc. That is totally underwhelming, and the newsfootage archives usually snip the footage at frame 352 (the iconic "Patty" sidestep image). However, the unedited footage clearly shows the creature walking away; the rotation of the shoulders; flexion of the arms and shoulder width all preclude the possibility of a hoax. Best estimates put Patty in the 600 lb range; all big boned muscle... and she's at least 7'2'' and 38'' across the shoulders.
Meldrum's companion book to the above mentioned documentary deals with the Patterson Footage in excruciating detail, addressing all the dismissals and hoax claims.
Liberalisimo,
Your argument is one of default dismissal... if you had taken the time to research the available evidence your opinion would change.
For the record, Sasquatch bodies (and live specimens) are recovered occasionally... it's just that the last recovered body (live) was the "Jacko" case of 1894. Similar to the situation with the Bili Ape prior to 2003; the mountain gorilla prior to 1905; the lowland gorilla prior to 1847 etc etc.
It is foolish to think that a rare, reclusive population of animals is either rediscovered every few years or simply doesn't exist. It's a spectrum... the snow leopard was believed by many to be extinct, after seven years of trying it was finally filmed in the wild for the first time ever by the BBC in 2006... the cloud leopard was only photographed live for the first time ever in 2008 (by game camera)... the Sumatran tiger is seldom if ever seen (and even more rarely photographed) despite living near humans.
Let me give you an example:
During the 1970's biologists stationed aboard Japanese whaling ships noticed that some of the sperm whales being slaughtered on the decks were speckled with rather large squid sucker marks. Analysis of these sucker marks showed they fell into two camps; roughly one inch diameter and another population of sucker marks centered on 2.5'' diameter. Aware of the direct ratio between sucker diameter and body length which holds for all species of squid, some of the braver scientists posited that the sucker marks indicated the existence of two, distinct as-yet-unknown species of squid:
-the giant squid: 20 to 60 feet in length
-the colossal squid: 100 to (possibly) 300 feet in length
Some dismissed this evidence (citing the lack of bodies washed ashore; caught in dragnets etc), as you guys are doing here with the Sasquatch... while those who examined the ample evidence came to agree with the conclusions; legendary monster squid exist.
Subsequently, enormous squid beaks (again, two distinct sizes) were recovered from the stomachs of sperm whales.
Again, some dismissed this evidence... while the more open minded were won over.
During the early eighties several specimen of 20-30 foot squid washed ashore from deep waters... some saw this as vindication, others dismissed even this evidence by claiming the bodies represented adult mutant known squid species rather than juvenile monster squid (the bodies were mostly immature).
In the last ten years the giant squid has been repeatedly videoed (30+ foot long) and recently a tentacle was pulled from a live specimen.
Who was right? The reactionary naysayers or the interested researchers? What about the legendary reports of the Kracken multi-limbed sea monster attacking ships? Can they still be dismissed as fanciful exaggerations?
So now both species are accepted by science, despite the fact that the monstrous colossal squid has never been videoed; never been captured; no body has ever been recovered; no DNA has ever been sequenced.
The creatures existence is vouched for SOLELY by its sucker marks... tantamount to classifying a cryptid merely from footprints.
Is that so much different than the Sasquatch situation?
The Luke