Jump to content

King, North TX

Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About King, North TX

  • Birthday 10/26/1975

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Central Texas
  • Interests
    Gardening, rock collecting and shaping
  • College Major/Degree
    AS, student
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Renewable Eneregies
  • Biography
    I am a wine maker
  • Occupation


  • Meson

King, North TX's Achievements


Baryon (4/13)



  1. That this thread is 'here', and not where originally posted is a form of "censorship", and I will be inactive until it is replaced. That is all.
  2. YOU say it is a false equivalence, but I am arguing it is 'silly' not to trust eye witness accounts, especially when patterns and trends begin to emerge. Given your propensity for accuracy, I'd argue that you are likely NOT eating the best cereal you possibly could...or maybe you are? Again, if eye witness-empirically collected evidence is so poor, then why don't we run into things more? Clearly our vision serves us on a daily basis to successfully navigate yet you dismiss it without regard.
  3. First...I had no idea there was a cryptozoology section, but that said, "I think moving this thread is both uncalled for and a manner of dismissal." This isn't about "Neanderthals", bigfoot, or the any other specific entity, but rather when it is acceptable to claim something extinct. To say the least, I do not fully appreciate this thread's removal. Look, what I don't get is why science disqualifies empirical evidence, sometimes. "People can misperceive." Indeed, we CAN...but DO we, so much so that "we" should not be trusted? How do you operate from day to day, then? If you were in the street and saw a bus headed toward you, would you not MOVE, so that it missed you? I personally find great folly in dismissing eye witness accounts, and my OWN eyes, but that's just me... Well, all that I can do is trust reputable journalists to cover this as they can...I haven't been in a field in decades.
  4. Agreed...but the degree to which that variation occurs and 'changes' would have everything to do with varying environmental demands, right? Agreed, and I would argue that progress IS evolution.
  5. You don't think living on another planet would have anything to do with our biological evolution??? EVERYTHING in a given environment, including the people in it drive one's evolution.
  6. No... Human evolution continues. Olympic records continue to fall, our frontiers pushed further outward, colonization of Mars is but a generation away.
  7. Are you claiming that we know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING...? Really? There are no mysteries, or unexplained periods or time utterly lost to history? I find that well beyond funny.
  8. Have you not heard that 'we' have Neanderthal DNA in us...? Reversion to a more wild form, and selective breeding 'could' bring back Neanderthals...looking around I am not so sure this isn't a commonality. I think it further folly to pretend to know everything about Neanderthal behavior and nomadic capabilities...
  9. I like to try to keep things simple. Instead of inventing bigfoot, it is far more simple to look to a KNOWN entity that has both ability and knowledge to hide their dead... I usually find that the simplest answer is the right one, herein maybe something we thought was extinct, isn't. Ages ago, their very survival depended on NOT being seen, detected, or they WOULD be hunted. I guess, all of the answers lay in who and what they are. Maybe they've learned to preserve food, scavenge off of other kills, or eat grubs and the like. I have no idea. I think hunter's game cameras, infrared, and night vision WILL be how we catch them...some believe we already have.
  10. Eye witness testimony is not "invaluable"... If you were a field general, and a scout just returned with "visually collected" data on the approaching forces numbers and capability, what are you gonna do with that "empirically collected evidence" or "anecdote"...? Ignore it? Trust it? Would you ask questions about the reliability of the scout's previous reports? Would you drug test him, before trusting the data? So, you want a "pure" untainted by soil, sweat, rain, or other living organisms DNA sample of an unknown primate to be presented for review by you personally...sans that you stand in disbelief? Do you think you could make those goalposts any more narrow? I never took statistics, so my terminology may be off, but I know probabilities and reality often differ. Sightings happen in the same kind(s) of places, the world over.
  11. Eye witnesses are not equal to one another, and should not be generalized. "No, Neanderthals exist." You said it yourself, it is "rare" but things do pop up...and "bigfoot" has been seen by all men throughout the ages, the world over... They spurred legend, cult followings, and have had an effect on our world...even spawning this exchange. We know black holes exist, not because we can see them, but because they have an affect on the things around them... Without FULLY exploring a known habitat, it would be folly to say you were "certain" about what exists and what doesn't.
  12. "The climate is changing." "We've got a possibility of a snow tornado." ...Yup, that's what some weather person just said there is a possibility of... So that's not new, right? We've always had "snow tornados!?" When I was a kid, I lived almost dead center tornado alley, north central Texas. We had tornados drills aplenty and severe thunderstorms were commonplace. Now, according to the data, more actual tornados are occurring further east and north. I blogged about it once. But now there's talk of a snow tornado? That's a new one for me...
  13. I've always thought of "God" AS the ever-expanding universe that is a set of unbreakable rules that guide all the moving bodies therein. We are just a drop of water in that every expanding sea of expanse... God isn't one thing, but rather everything, and how it works within itself.
  14. My assertion here is that so many eye witnesses ARE "empirically collected data", that this data shows "patterns & trends" leaning TOWARD, not away from a "KNOWN" reality that science mistakenly snuffed out, without fully exploring a known habitat. Science FAILED to prove many things "extinct"...well a few anyway. "Contamination" by what...? I asked before, hoping you could explain "unknown DNA", as a 'contamination'? The problem with "probabilities" is that they don't always apply to reality. You MIGHT flip a coin 100 times, and it land on heads half the time, but it might not. This world is large enough for LOTS of stuff to hide...
  15. Sorry, I got wrapped up in school work. 4-A's one B. SOB! In any case, you asked for a reference, because this is a science board and all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/bigfoot-dna-proves-creature-exists-genetic_n_2199984.html But I suppose that really doesn't count. My point here is NOT that 'I' should have to prove anything, but that Science itself FAILED when it declared the Neanderthals extinct to begin with. Unless 100% of known habitat for said entity is eliminated, it is folly to say something is for sure extinct. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The giant red-headed woodpecker is but another recent example of science's failure is this regard. The DO have recent . But I am sure you'll say these videos could be faked, right?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.