dmaker

Sésquac
  • Content count

    5,666
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dmaker

  1. There are many factors at play. That is one of the reasons I remain interested in the subject. Perhaps people are engaging in bigfoot role playing because of the popularity of things like Finding Bigfoot? What makes it gameplay is not so much the physical trappings--although they are there with things such as camo outfits, military sounding operational names, night cameras, etc--, but more the tacit understanding that the whole thing unravels if you admit bigfoot does not, or more likely does not, exist. Anyway, I'm probably steering the thread off topic with this line of commentary. I'd start another thread dealing with bigfoot as a form of recreational pretend for adults, but I don't think it would go over very well. It would be meant objectively and not meant to be ridicule, but I don't think it would be taken that way, so I'll just leave it at that.
  2. Not mermaids, no. I think Dogman is gaining traction in some places.
  3. We've had mermaids, megalodons, ghosts, etc on the Discovery Channel.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. Mine was a genuine question. If there is no mystery around existence for you (unless I am mistaken), then what is the mystery you want to solve?
  11. What would a solution look like to you that concludes with non existent? There isn't one, is there? It always puzzles me when proponents talk about "solving the mystery". What that really means is proof of bigfoots existence. There is nothing else. The irony is that the mystery has been solved. Time and lack of evidence has made the likelihood of bigfoot being real almost 0. But you will continue on talking about solving a mystery when in your mind there is no doubt, so what, exactly, is the mystery for you?
  12. Yeah, and that person does not believe bigfoot to exist. So, that proves that reading a ton of reports has more than one conclusion. That is something you seem to struggle with. As you said, a scientist, which you are not, has read many reports and arrived at a different conclusion than you. You see, that is possible. I've read far more reports than you give me credit for. I actually kind of enjoy reading them for their folklore value. The reports are a great source of shared mythology. Granted, we approach them from a different mindset, but do not kid yourself when you think I am a stranger to the reports.
  13. Why? What makes them more special than any other published phd? Because they believe in bigfoot, so they get an instant pass? How do you know what people read? That is not terribly scientific. There you go again fixating on the non falsifiable while waving your science flag. Do you understand how ironic that is? You garner zero scientific currency by loudly proclaiming your obsession with non falsifiable evidence. You think you are making one point, but all you are doing is discrediting your position in a very strong way. Reading reports is not "doing the work" Nothing can be proven from reports. That you think reading the reports constitutes scientific inquiry is so cringe inducing that it is beyond words.
  14. You would know any better? By your own logic, no.
  15. How many sasquatch hairs, or other physical evidence, have been recovered from nests? You would think these nests would be a treasure trove of biological evidence. All those pointy sticks trapping hairs and all other sorts of goodies. Let me guess, no one bothered to actually recover anything of the sort from these nests? But we're just gonna go ahead and call them bigfoot nests anyway, because that is more fun? Bears strip bark and make nests on the ground and in the trees. Example of a bald eagle ground nest. Looks familiar. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjY2-be94PUAhVp3IMKHcZWAPEQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpixnio.com%2Ffauna-animals%2Fbirds%2Feagle-birds-images%2Fbald-eagle-pictures%2Fbald-eagle-nest-on-ground&psig=AFQjCNEzeOkY6VcuMyspiIdRrMIneqW2fg&ust=1495557374909567
  16. Shadow, may I ask you a question? It's not terribly scientific, but it might speak directly to our disconnect. You seem to portray a very personal connection with bigfoot. Almost to the point of fetishism (I don't mean that as an insult, it's just a term). Do you have similar thoughts or relationships with any mundane, or documented species? Bigfoot seems to hold an almost spiritual significance for you. That is perhaps why my objectivity is at such odds with your subjectivity. I fail to understand why bigfoot seems so personal to you.
  17. Shadow, again your personal truth means nothing to an objective observer. It simply cannot. I am not you. There is no guarantee that I would perceive what you did in the same way. You keep thinking that I would see what you see the same way and arrive at the same conclusion. Such is not the case. That is why anecdotes are useless in this case as evidence for existence. If one believes there to be some truth to the legend, then sure, use the reports as a starting point to head out on your investigations. If something conclusive is recovered, then I would love to adjust my position. That has not happened yet, and I don't believe that it ever will. In the meantime, focusing on personal truths and encounter stories is going to provide for nothing more than interesting campfire stories.
  18. If you set aside the anecdotes, you are left with evidence that has multiple potential sources. None of it is conclusive, and of the potential sources, the only ones ever proven are fabrication or error. Not once has the coin landed on the side of " this could only have come from an undocumented ape". Never. It is no wonder you focus on the anecdotes. Your approach is unscientific in that it is steeped in the unfalsifiable. You prefer to focus on that which cannot be proven or disproven. This provides you with all the wiggle room you want to make your grand, but ultimately empty, proclamations. You're not fooling anyone who examines this phenomenon with a hard skeptical and scientific eye. I don't believe that bigfoot exists simply because of the gap between the thousands of reports and the utter lack of conclusive hard evidence. That gap just gets bigger the more the reports march in and no supporting evidence is provided. That you see this as a strong point belies your lack of understanding.
  19. Your problem is two fold: 1) You refuse to acknowledge that "bigfoot exists" is not the only conclusion possible given the current state of evidence. It does not matter that I have spent plenty of time in allegedly squatchy areas from north Vancouver island camping in a remote area accessible only by a 5 hour boat ride from Campbell River, to the Desolation Wilderness in the Sierras, and a childhood and adulthood spent in Ontario during which I have spent much time in the outdoors including some remote portaging trips in the interior of Algonquin Park. Nevermind the fact that I have read the same "scientific" examinations of bigfoot ( Meldrum, Bindernagel, etc) as you have read. I have seen countless documentaries and read a similar amount of bigfoot stories--I believe you call them reports. You know all of this, have been told this by me many times. That you persist in spouting this lie that I have never examined any evidence questions your integrity as it relates to this discussion. Also, we all saw how discerning your eye is when it comes to evidence a couple of Aprils ago. Remember that? Does Rugman ring a bell? 2) You vastly exaggerate the value of anecdotal evidence. You think that if you constantly wave your hands and say where there is smoke, there must be fire, that people will begin to ignore the lack of fire, or worse, will believe that they can see some flames.
  20. SWWASA, you have mentioned that you have regular contact with a group of sasquatches. Now, if anyone is in a favorable position to collect evidence, it is you. Yet all you have to share is your "personal observations". That strikes me as pretty odd. Here you are virtually sitting on the scientific find of the century, one that you state you wish would happen in your lifetime for all the crow eating reasons, and yet you are incapable of collecting any evidence? At least, beyond your personal observations? Forgive me if I question your ardour when it comes to "looking at the evidence". If you have nothing to offer, what is one to look at? You love to bemoan skeptics for not looking at the evidence, yet here you are, surrounded by sasquatches, and all you have to offer is stories? I don't think it's my commitment that needs examining.
  21. The point I have been trying to make, SWWASA, is what good is your "personal observation" to me? I can't share it. I cannot know if it is true or accurate. Until some evidence is offered that is not merely anecdotal, or is something that really can only have one explanation, I am going to consider bigfoot a myth. How is that dogmatic?
  22. Indeed, but evidence of what? That is the question. Time, and the absence of more concrete evidence where there should be an abundance, seems to indicate that those types of evidence you proffer are evidence of, not a bigfoot, but more likely to be evidence of mistakes and fabrication. The more time passes, and the witness reports and the "trace" evidence you mention, pile up, the less likely bigfoot becomes. For me, that tipping point was met a very long time ago. For you, not so much. Such is your prerogative. I should get out there and mistakenly interpret common events as evidence of bigfoot? Again, you seem to assume a shared perception. I may not see something the same way that you do. Please tell me how more ambiguous evidence piled on is going to help anything? I cannot examine an anecdote first hand, no one can. Please tell me you understand that, at least. Me, or anyone, continuing to confuse common signs as evidence of bigfoot is going to, likewise, contribute nothing to the discussion. And again, you continue to assume that what you perceive to be evidence of bigfoot, means that I, or anyone else, would so so as well. That is likely not going to be the case. Years and years of me typing on this forum is going to accomplish exactly the same things you spending years and years typing on this forum. To whit, nothing at all. So, why do I do it? Why do you do it? For me, it's an interesting way to employ critical thinking skills into a live discussion. And if, at the end of it, bigfoot proves to be real? Awesome! That would be a win for both parties, as far as I am concerned. I doubt very much, however, there will ever be an end to it. This discussion will go on with the same back and forth forever probably. That does not mean there is nothing to be learned from it, or nothing to be gained by participating. Such is my opinion.
  23. Norse and Shadow, you both speak of personal experiences. But personal experiences are not evidence. Nor are they a guarantee to a common reaction. One persons inexplicable and odd event may be another persons interesting, or even possibly mundane, event. Human perception is not a single spectrum. It is highly personal and subjective. It is shaped by things like individual life experiences and bias, faulty memories, and, in some cases, agendas. Without supporting evidence a story cannot be examined or investigated for truth or accuracy. This is why anecdotes are the least useful type of evidence, at least insofar as a scientific investigation or examination is concerned. Examples of animals once thought to be extinct do not really improve the case for bigfoot. If anything, they lessen it in my opinion. We can discover a species of fish once thought to be extinct, but we cannot produce on single shred of scientifically verifiable evidence for a giant ape spread out across all of North America and supposedly seen by thousands of people? That does not compute. Adding thousands and thousands more anecdotes will not make any difference whatsoever.
  24. I don't understand why you are so eager to suggest extinct creatures may still be around. Why must the question become "..are they still around"? There is really no decent evidence to support the notion that they are still around, so why do you insist that there is a question at all? I see no real reason to be asking it.
  25. Not at all. All bigfoot evidence has simple alternate sources. There is a high degree of ambiguity. Not a single piece of bigfoot evidence cannot be explained by a more mundane source. Be that fabrication or error. That is the problem with bigfoot evidence. That and the fact that most of it is not falsifiable in the first place. Read the dragon in my garage article. It lays this concept out perfectly.