• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DWA

  1. It's not logical to look at any species for which evidence is clearly lacking. Elk? Rule it out, bingo. I am not sure how people can continue to fail to get that THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE ELK A POSSIBILITY - four tracks smack in the center of the cast, where they'd have to be for the animal to get up - IS NOT IN THE CAST. Bear? Nope. Lion? Nope. Wolverine shrew-mole mountain beaver human etc., nope. No evidence in the cast. Evidence of large hairy hominoid? PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE CAST. Plus much evidence - from actual observation of actual large anthropoids, in zoos - that they do precisely what the animal allegedly leaving the imprint was allegedly doing. Follow evidence. Anything else? Snipe hunt. P.S. I fail to get how anyone can be unmoved by one of the more prominent anthropologists and primate specialists of the past century going from skeptic to proponent on the basis of this cast alone. Him over you.
  2. Most of us use a witness's track record as evidence for/against. On that score, we have hundreds if not thousands of unimpeachable reports. I don't see a deer every time out. If you see a bigfoot every time out...you are gonna have to show me.
  3. "If you see one, throw crap at it. They hate that." "Where am I gonna find crap? Even in the woods there isn't a whole lot of crap around." "You see one...there'll be PLENTY of crap around." Get those clothes off fast.
  4. Sure. If evidence suggests a hoax. But it's not rational to assume hoaxing as a possible reason for all this evidence. And contrary to popular belief, the *least likely* cause is the oft-cited "hoaxes hallucinations and honest misidentifications." The odds against various causes coming together to add up to what we're seeing are far longer than if one postulates only one possible cause. You simply are not going to get the consistency we see with a whole bunch of random generators. The consistency says: either one agency is causing all these false positives...or they point to the thing to which they appear to point. We're still talking about P/G being a hoax, when no one has been able to postulate a means by which humans could have done it. "Easy: guy made a suit and put in footprints" isn't an explanation, any more than "the sun's a heatlamp that NASA put up there" is. One has to show, in detail, HOW it could have been done.
  5. Oh, hoaxing is insignificant. It is only dwelt upon by those unfamiliar with the breadth and depth of the evidence. It's not worth considering.
  6. I don't know why this continually needs to be mentioned but it continually does: throwing out a bunch of possibilities, with no evaluation of their likelihood - and I'm with WSA right down the line on the likelihood of the human-generated causes mentioned - says nothing asserts nothing proves nothing. And is actually inadmissible in the absence of clear evidence that the speculated possibility actually happened. Occam's Razor applies better to ruling out those causes than it does sasquatch, as the "simplest explanation" has to be an expected occurrence in the actual real world.
  7. I may even have posted it on this thread but I am aware of three of which this is one.
  8. That doesn't change WSA's point, which I was backing up. They don't need to have smarts precisely our way to have more than smarts enough.
  9. Yep, thought about it. Chimps find a rock that helps a lot in cracking a nut, and a depression in a branch that holds the nut. They keep the rock, and bring nuts to the branch. Woodpeckers find trees that resonate - and drainpipes as well - and go there to hammer out their territorial announcements. NAWAC reported rocks, and firewood, taken from woodpiles, found near trees corresponding to locations from which they were hearing knocks. Humans aren't disciplined about knocking, usually. They won't go once, or twice, and stop. Not unless they know about sasquatch reports, and are copycatting what they've read. Likelihood effectively zero. (Would you/anyone you know/anyone they know?) I know of at least three reports, from CA CO and FL, of a witness catching one in the act.
  10. Cams may be a part of an effort, but odds are overwhelming that they won't get us where we want to go. We underrate how camera placements work for so many other species because we accept their existence and thus know where to find them.
  11. In other words: they're animals, and behave just like the ones we know. Chimps are making material progress; they've apparently advanced into their own Stone Age. Then we have the wild orangutan who knows what a saw is, and how to use it. All the evidence says: there's really nothing remarkable about them, at least not any more remarkable than any other animal. Our species - and its ability to deny what is right in front of it - that's what is remarkable here.
  12. ^^^Another problem when you don't have enough information on habits (although we have a surprising amount). One could be sending a "get out of there!" signal...
  13. And so it is with this topic in general. Not only did I not really start reading the scientific proponents until I'd done copious research - and found them agreeing with me right down the line - but I compare what we bring to the table with what the scoffers do. There's no comparison.
  14. If one compared the reams of evidence for sasquatch and yeti with the almost nonexistent evidence we have for numerous hominoids *we "know" to exist,* one would have to vouch for sasquatch and yeti. And please don't even try to tell me "yeah but we have bones for those; we don't have bones for these." First, *you do not know that,* do you? (Hint: You don't. Hint: the evidence is *that we do.*) Second, the likenesses we have of all extinct primates are largely derived from fragments that would suggest nothing to a layman; the likenesses we have of sasquatch and yeti are derived from *footprints that happen all the time, pretty much* and *thousands of very consistent sightings of whole living moving breathing grunting yelling growling screaming animals by both laymen and scientists.* Just about the most powerful indicator possible: These animals have been seen doing pretty much every single thing a living animal does. There is not a possible encounter type with a living wild animal that someone has not had with a sasquatch or yeti. One could write a pretty good guidebook entry for both, right now. How's that working for "Lucy?" Not much better than it is for unicorns, I'm afraid.
  15. If y'all insist on not taking the scientist's approach to this topic...over and out. New thread, seeya...
  16. Yes, I know, we're all into that Science is ******** now. Well, good luck then.
  17. SCIENCE DID. The evidence is right there, all of it, public information. ALL OF IT.
  18. We DID OUR HOMEWORK. Over and out. How many times have scientists said this, right here on these Forums? SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT PROOF! Proof is what scientists give to the ignorant people signing their paychecks. But they had to **** well know the thing was real to produce the proof. ONE. MORE. TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is ANYONE on these forums EVER gonna show me a scientist who has examined the evidence...and disagrees with me? Can I hazard a prediction? NO.
  19. ARE YOU KIDDING!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!? Why don't you ask that question of every skeptic here? Ramming their fingers in their ears; poking out their eyes; rupturing their eardrums; not reading not hearing not learning not advancing a millimeter off their little silly scoftic rock, and yelling yelling yelling YELLING YELLING YELLING "NOT EXISTING 'TIL PROVEN?!?!?!?!?!?" STOP this! Can't show me you can run with the big dogs on this, there's nothing I need to say to you. I came here to see who's thinking. Who's reading. Too few are. Show me how the evidence tells me I am wrong. Can I stop you there? Here is what you'll say. NOT PROVEN. Wow.
  20. I personally believe that. Thousands have seen it. Thousands more have found footprints that a thing like that would make. And one guy got a film of an animal that left footprints like those. No way can it get stronger than that without being in every guidebook; and scientists with relevant chops who have looked at it closely agree with me. The "discovery" doesn't have to be made by everybody to be a discovery. Many of one's personal beliefs are things one pretty much knows are true. This is one of those for me.
  21. No. People bother to continue attempting to collect proof for these reasons: 1. The mainstream insists on stonewalling until proof, while doing no work to get there; 2. Personal curiosity, which they don't hold a shred of hope the mainstream will satisfy for them; 3. Belief that 1. is true, and that someone will have to shove something under the mainstream's nose. Why should I root against them? Why shouldn't they (and you) be doing it? My PERSONAL stance is: the evidence satisfies me. If I see one great; if I don't too bad so sad. Feel the same way about wolverines, mountain lions, mountain beavers and shrew-moles. Besides which I have no personal interest in killing a living thing to satisfy a blockhead. Although I understand those who want the blockheads to eat crow, I am simply satisfied that I get what's going on and the blockheads don't.
  22. I don't have to, is the cool part. All you have to show me is ONE skeptic who has a shred of anything other than "not proven yet," which counts for zero in a scientific discussion. Then, of course, you get to watch me shoot him to smithereens. Although you can tell me if you wish how you've gotten where you are on this, and I where I have, when all I have done for my "personal knowledge" is READ publicly available evidence...and THINK about it. Go 'head. I'd love to see somebody get me to change my mind with an argument based on evidence and logic. But I am sure not holding my breath on that. And my problem is: they always say (when they say it): PROOF. That's what teeth bones a body are. Know how scientists get those? By following EVIDENCE. There is, by a lot, much more consistent and compelling evidence for sasquatch than there has ever been for anything the society hasn't accepted yet. Know how I know that? I'm interested enough in the topic TO READ AND FIND OUT.
  23. The only people who seem to be paying careful attention to the evidence either vouch for the animal's existence or insist it is time to get out there and find out. All the proof I need. It is real if it exists, proof notwithstanding; and the evidence makes a beyond-solid case. All I need. And I have no interest in lifting a finger for anyone who has made it plain they're staying right where they are on this until they personally see one. Good luck there, is all I say to that.
  24. Well, given the wholly irrational response of academe to the issue so far, maybe we shouldn't expect rationality after they get a body either.
  25. I'm not so sure about this. Me personally? I can drag the "extinct" line of, well, either Gigantopithecus or the robust australopithecines right into the present, and change nothing else. Or say hmmmm, we don't seem to have found the fossil ancestry for this one yet, which has only happened innumberable times in the biological sciences. This doesn't need to change what we "know" - almost all of which is just intelligent speculation anyway - any more than finding a new species of tapir, or deer, or monkey does.