All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Big surprise considering the superiority complex already displayed.
  3. You keep making proclamations like this, but you never back them up. I have asked you numerous times to provide some examples of these primate traits supposedly known only to primatologists. You won't because you can't because all of these traits you covet could easily be known to anyone that has been to a zoo, watched a documentary or two and has a computer or tablet. Do you know how ridiculous it sounds when you rest your case on the unfalsifiable? Especially when you add the impossible charge of proving every anecdote to be false. They cannot be proven true, nor can they be proven false. Hence why they have a diminished value as evidence. That's insulting to women.
  4. (And don't ask me how my post wound up duplicating itself. There must be a female somewhere. I did add a line at the end. Be more fun, gang. Read up, think up. THAT'S a scientist. See, on topic!)
  5. NAWAC is doing their job. Know why? They're READING REPORTS (and compiling them to boot). And they think about them. And on their own time with their own money, they've seen more sasquatch than 99% of the posters here combined. (And I've explained a gillion times why they haven't shot one yet.) Know what a scientist does? Peruse the evidence. The eyewitness testimony is one of the three unshakeable legs of sasquatch evidence, and every proponent scientist knows why: you absolutely cannot discount them without proving - that is proving - every single one to be a false positive. They defy, to those who are familiar with them, every attempt to brush them off. People, we the knowledgeable know, are not like this; they don't make up from thousands of disparate reports just the kind of animal a scientist would predict. They don't make up out of whole cloth - knowing nothing about the topic - a hominid primate, with traits only known to be characteristic of those animals by primatologists. They only describe what they saw, in the varied voices of a continent, and are not copycatting lying or makiing stuff up. But one only understands this if one has read them and, harrumph saskeptic! THOUGHT ABOUT THEM. Bigfoot skeptics (who aren't skeptical, they're True Believers) simply dismiss them with assumptions, which any scientist knows one cannot do. There is no other record of eyewitness reportage in the history of our species like the one for sasquatch. For those who have read them and applied themselves to, HELLO, actually thinking about what they have read, they are compelling by themselves. But they aren't by themselves; there is a footprint avalanche that scientists have all but proven impossible to fake. Then there's a film that could not bring those two threads together better than it does. How come I know this, and all you people are reduced to making jokes about work you have not done, which points up your lack of grounding in the subject matter, hmmmmm? How come I have effective arguments against you, the kind a scientist would make, and yours are ineffective, the kind any unschooled noob makes, hmmmm? I read and think; that's the work of science. I connect disparate threads to one another, assess commonalities, and drop outliers. I know who's a crock and who isn't (seeya, Justin Smeja!). I seem to know a lot more about this than a lot of people who are putting in significant field time; and the reason is that field time is insufficient unless you, you know, KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. There should be a lot more solid content on this site than there is. There isn't because too few people like to do science. They prefer empty speculation and making stuff up out of whole cloth. One could examine the evidence. Which one doesn't need a science degree to do. One only needs a brain and the willingness to use it. But I am not, you know, seeing much stepping up on that count. Am I. (I honestly wish a LOT more of you would have ME on your Ignore lists. I wish that super bad.) Any scientist would know: that is right. ;-) AND STOP USING ALL THOSE^^ CAPS. Reserved for scientists. Thank you.
  6. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Is NAWAC doing their job or not? Have they not read enough reports??? Edit: IB4 More posts in capital letters proclaiming if you do not agree with DWA, YOU are wrong.
  7. It's always funny when you stand up in front of a group of people who spend a great deal of their time searching for bigfoot, some on a daily basis, some on weekends with their local bigfoot group (there are dozens of these groups across North America), and tell them they are wasting their time. Yet you say there is no real effort being made. I'd be pretty insulted if I was spending a fair chunk of my free time putting in the effort that you so casually dismiss as meaningless. Many important species discoveries have been made by non professional scientists. You are full of many contradictions. On the one hand, you bemoan scientists for not doing proper science; and then on the other, you dismiss your fellow enthusiasts as incapable of finding bigfoot because you're waiting for scientists to get involved.
  8. Yesterday
  9. There are two ways for a scientist to look at this, or he's not one: 1) IF HE HAS PERUSED THE EVIDENCE TO A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE: I think that this is a real animal OR I think that follow-up research in the field is required/justified (or suitable variants on these two responses, depending upon the degree of perusal). 2) IF HE HAS NOT: I await the proof and wish the searchers luck. THAT'S IT. Nothing else has accumulated this much evidence of this breadth and depth - not even close - prior to its acceptance as real by the society at large. It's five decades past full-court-press time. The animal should have been confirmed in 1968, latest. The total effort since P/G hasn't gotten up to the level required to have done that. Period. If sasquatch is confirmed - our comprehensive species stone-headedness forbids "when" - it will be a comprehensive indictment of the professional practice of science.
  10. ^^^Good. Glad we have that understanding.
  11. Absolutely. I agree quite strongly. I would even take it a step further and postulate that many already know the creature does not exist, and that for them bigfooting is more of an adult live action role-playing game. There is no misunderstanding. I don't expect you to have an existence debate with me. Both of those needles are firmly stuck where they are right now and the only thing that would change that is for the current evidence bar to be kicked up quite a bit. I was more trying read between the lines of your comments. As I've said many times, I am interested in the motivations and mindset of those that choose to participate in this phenomenon as proponents. So, when you started talking about a concerted effort to get to the bottom of the mystery, I was curious what you meant, since the "mystery" is not whether bigfoot exists or not. You still have not really answered that question, but that is your prerogative. It's not that important.
  12. I told you why saskeptic's approach is totally invalid from a scientist's perspective, right? Yes I did. In plain English. But this is something you seem to struggle with. Your approach is equally invalid. You approach the reports - get this, APPROACH THE REPORTS - as FALSE. Shoot, even saskeptic's totally unscientific approach was better than that.
  13. It appears to me your misunderstanding Dmaker is that you believe I'm open to having that kind of debate with you, or with anyone else for that matter. I'm not. I filled that proponent/opponent Bingo card long ago. I'm only interested in defining the problem as I see it to be, in a manner that fits my perception of it. This is it. If you want an exercise in debate, seek if from somebody else, sorry. On the topic of the original post, I also am of the opinion that it frames the scientific response by anyone who might consider themselves to qualify as a (capital "S") Scientist. You differ in that assessment, I get that.
  14. As can those other phenomena. The science of psychology and history of myth and popular cultural beliefs explain well both bigfoot and spaceship sightings. They both also challenge assertions like never has there been this kind of false positive ever, therefore bigfoot is real. We have more spaceship believers than bigfoot, so that kind of pokes holes in that argument. Not at all. Whether it is unknown things in the sky, or in the woods, matters little to me. The situations are similar. Both are fed by thousands of eye witness claims. There is very little physical evidence to examine. Very similar situations, yet you and I arrive at completely different questions. You examine the evidence and conclude bigfoot exists, therefore your question is what is the natural history of this animal and how has it eluded documentation for so long? I examine the evidence and conclude there is an almost zero chance that bigfoot exists, so my question becomes why do people report seeing something that does not exist?
  15. Sure...I find it to be true in all my dealings with people over many decades, we'd always much rather restate the problem over and over before we'll make the first attempt to take steps to solve it. It is always just more satisfying to do that, it seems. For those with small children, you know how they have the tendency to do this especially. But not to be pejorative about it. There are people who have moved on to working at real solutions. They are the few though, and lack resources. For every one of those we have probably ten who will either tell you the problem never existed or that it has already been solved to (what they say should be) the satisfaction of everyone. These kinds are both pro and con on this subject. I tend to believe both sides of that divide are wrong, according to those actively looking for the solution...which are the only ones, really, who matter at all for my purposes.
  16. If it was 100% it would not matter. Im thoroughly convinced most proponents do not want to get to the bottom of this. They would rather participate in this myth for eternity, than to move forward to the answer with the very real possibility the creature does not exist.
  17. Bigfoot is special. That's the gist of it?
  18. You know, I take no stance on those other phenomena, whether they are supported by evidence or not, the quality of the evidence, or lack of quality. What others think about them doesn't inform my conclusions about BF at all and I really have no interest in them to the extent I do about this topic. I of course realize they do get lumped into the same category by many, and the fault for that is probably it is just too enticing a headline... "UFO Brought the BF That Stole My Baby!" sez The National Enquirer sort of thing, right? We really aren't a serious culture anymore, if we ever were, and that explains so much about our failures to address so many issues, BF being just one of those. But anyway..... What makes BF a special problem to me is, fundamentally, because it is a problem rooted in human evolution and biology. What the rest of those subjects on that list have in common is they are not. Despite many of the paranormal theories about BF floating around on the fringes of the field, BF can be explained using garden-variety biology, evolution and natural history. No woo-woo necessary. When you compare the BF problem to them I believe you are equating lightning with the lightning bug, as M. Twain might have said. It allows you to avoid the fundamental nature of the problem and does nothing to answer what is really a unique question.
  19. It would be interesting to see what the overlap is between these fringe beliefs.
  20. Well, comments like that will help to ensure a one sided conversation. I can't believe you actually just said to the entire membership here that if you don't agree with me, your opinion does not count. Your arrogance has reached a new height. I'd say congratulations, but you're probably already patting your own back.
  21. What you are neglecting to share are the other fringe beliefs held by a large number of Americans: Astology is real: 13% Fortune tellers can see the future: 18% Believe UFOs are spaceships: 44% Houses can be haunted by spirits: 52% Dreams can foretell the future: 56% Believe you can influence the physical world via thought: 63% I'm not sure what the point of an argumentum ad populum is here, but are you similarly impressed by the above topics? Do you think the sheer number of people that believe something matters?
  22. By that I mean Norse: More than there has ever been...not an insignificant number...and trending up, not static and not declining. The current estimate for Americans is around 30% +/- .
  23. Large and increasing? I would say a very small contingent believes in the creatures existence, and with scientists it's a minuscule amount. And it's all on us proponents to prove the existence of the creature by physical evidence.....the cavalry ain't coming. You might as well dump yer dental resin down the toilet.
  24. Hello all! I'm a new member and have enjoyed reading the posts . A couple of you have essentially stated what I was thinking regarding what a scientist is (one who uses a specific methodology for inquiring about the world). I would add that the goal of science is knowledge rather than 'truth,' and that knowledge about a given subject falls somewhere along a spectrum of weak to strong. So far I've read a couple of the formal publications dealing with material generated by those looking into Bigfoot. I think there is something important to bear in mind, and that is that science involves some kind of quantification in order to be able to extract patterns from raw data that may be meaningful. Research that doesn't take it to the next level by doing that is not complete. Observations can be made in a random way, OR they can be made in a way that yields quantifiable raw data with which analysis can be done. Also, graduate students in science actually do their own research which forms the foundation of their thesis or dissertation, and they really can be pushing the boundaries in their area of specialization, even if they are students. Part of the process is to become fluent in the work that has been done, true, but they aren't graduating as an expert in everything in a given field, but as an expert in the specific and much narrower subject of their research.
  25. Um, no I don't. (But you wouldn't understand so I won't explain. And no, you've shown me that.) But you sure back me up. You haven't read up and it shows. No, not to a scientist. He doesn't need one. Krantz, Meldrum, Bindernagel, Mionczynski, Schaller, Goodall, NAWAC, don't need to keep going here. (Me.) See? See. Any scientist worthy of the name pronouncing on this topic (1) has examined the evidence; (2) drawn the proper conclusions; and (3) thinks that proof might be cool but doesn't need it. He knows. (Patterson was not included. Patty was clearly not bagged, right? She's a real animal, that's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But bagged? No.) Here is how I know who's a scientist and who isn't: PROOF IS NOT PART OF PURE SCIENCE. Proof is for the ignorant people who pay you and the ignorant people who pay them. Doesn't matter either to you or to anyone who's examined the evidence. You all know it's out there and proof is a formality. And so has it ever been.
  26. Really if you are speaking of the Patterson creature. That is not bagged Only a body will suffice. Needs to be examined ,tested. A nice film and anecdotal evidence is not proof of a mythical beast and you knew that 9500 posts ago
  1. Load more activity