Incorrigible1 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 So you've never witnessed a bigfoot, but there's nary a report you've not read. Groovy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 At least, harrumph! I get one. You, not sae much. I keep prescribing Butthurt Relief. I am spoonfeeding you, buddy. But so far, [crickets] when it comes to, you know, input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) Eyewitness sightings mean nothing. I can create an eyewitness sighting. Does that mean I had one. No. So science has yet to enter the picture. Science begins when you have two stand alone sources of verification. Kind of like the same standard for a journalism piece. Otherwise all you have is hearsay. I know you think you understand what your saying. That does not mean that you know what your saying. Science is other people knowing what you are saying because your data has meaning. Meaningless data abounds. "I taut I taw a puddy tat". Science is not sightings of puddy tats Cause anyone can say I taw a puddy tat. And analysis of I taut I taw return a meaningless metric. And that's that, a hat is not a hat. Edited July 21, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 21, 2016 SSR Team Share Posted July 21, 2016 What about 10,000 of them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) Un. Bee. Leeb. A. Bill. 31 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said: Eyewitness sightings mean nothing. If eyewitness reports *mean nothing,* you said: MEAN NOTHING... 1) why aren't you lying in wait for sasquatch in your bedroom? In a Wal-Mart? At an airport? In a bar? At a ballgame? Why are you looking *where you are looking?* Why have you - and you have - *told other people where to look*?? 2) why are you here? Over a thousand posts??? 3) why do you think the animal is a possibility? Why are you looking for it? You're doing field research, right? WHY!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!??! I'll tell you why: 10,000 sighting reports. That is why. Don't bother arguing this with me, K? Because I have read them. And the thing we are looking for...is real, and pretty much what people have been telling us - since before this nation began - it is. Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Science is the practice of turning hearsay into knowledge. While we are on that. Oh. I know beyond perfectly what I am about and what the world tells me beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt: the world's largest primate lives in your state, and at least passes through 48 others. That is bankable. *Science says so.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, BobbyO said: What about 10,000 of them ? I have a continuing problem with this: I've never seen one so they aren't real. I can make up a sighting report so they're all made up. I can perfectly fake an okapi track. Is the okapi not real? Do the fake Rembrandts and Van Goghs mean those guys weren't real? Please please PLEASE! don't say "but we have proof they exist(ed)." That is NOT how science works! The most violent misconception of science possible is that proof is important to a scientist. It is only important to the people who pay him and the ignorant public. HE DOESN'T NEED IT. Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA I'll tell you something else I have a continuing problem with: the software constantly duplicating my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said: I can create an eyewitness sighting. Does that mean I had one. No. Bears repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) [better way] Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA [better way] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said: Bears repeating. As irrelevant as it may be. Who cares about you and your phony report? It's why the other 10,000 happened that I care about. Getting back to the OP that people don't seem to be able to stay on topic about: all the bigfoot clips were probably just snippysnipped off the Cascade Carnivore Project's files. You know they were. I said so. It's more likely that I'm right than that all those 10,000 people are, for various random reasons, wrong. 18 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said: Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA STOP DUPLICATING MY POSTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 21, 2016 SSR Team Share Posted July 21, 2016 25 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said: Bears repeating. I don't think it does, I read it the first time and it didn't do a great deal for me, second time round it still doesn't do a great deal for me to be honest especially when before it, it has "eyewitness sightings mean nothing" written. Eyewitness sightings may be inaccurate at times, a complete outright lie even at others, but they certainly don't "mean nothing", especially when you have thousands of them invariably describing the same thing over a period of 100 or so years now. If they really did "mean nothing" you simply wouldn't have people standing in front of a courtroom giving a description of what they saw day in, day out being allowed to influence the decision of others in sending X and y to jail for years on end. Of course as always so much of this boils down to what you're understanding of this subject actually is. The cryptic guy never seems to know if he's coming or going and seems to change his stance on the subject more often than I change my socks, not sure what your stance on the subject is Incorr in the years that have past since I've "known" you but I'm pretty sure you're not a straight up knower/witness, neither is cryptic, so it's pretty easy for him, and maybe you depending on your stance, to dismiss 10,000 or so eyewitness reports just like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 Anyone who dismisses this kind of body of evidence just like that - with a host of informed people telling them, with insight and precision, where to look and how to treat it - is showing a serious inability to think seriously about (2,282) a place where they spend one hell (1,003) of a load of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 2 hours ago, BobbyO said: I don't think it does, I read it the first time and it didn't do a great deal for me, second time round it still doesn't do a great deal for me to be honest especially when before it, it has "eyewitness sightings mean nothing" written. Eyewitness sightings may be inaccurate at times, a complete outright lie even at others, but they certainly don't "mean nothing", especially when you have thousands of them invariably describing the same thing over a period of 100 or so years now. If they really did "mean nothing" you simply wouldn't have people standing in front of a courtroom giving a description of what they saw day in, day out being allowed to influence the decision of others in sending X and y to jail for years on end. Of course as always so much of this boils down to what you're understanding of this subject actually is. The cryptic guy never seems to know if he's coming or going and seems to change his stance on the subject more often than I change my socks, not sure what your stance on the subject is Incorr in the years that have past since I've "known" you but I'm pretty sure you're not a straight up knower/witness, neither is cryptic, so it's pretty easy for him, and maybe you depending on your stance, to dismiss 10,000 or so eyewitness reports just like that. I think what is being said is that 1 sighting or a million sightings? Science places no value on any of it, unlike a judicial proceeding evidently. Its mind boogling but its easier to convict and execute a person. Than it is to establish a new species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) And that reply is the reason that science(not your kind, apparently) doesn't study sasquatch or take you seriously. No way to separate the signal from the noise, in fact. Not just my fancy. At this point you think I'm trolling you, not realy. Read above, very controversial on a forum like this but not in the real world where people will know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not going to convert you as you have your mind made up. But as a professional in analysing data (a data scientist to all you non scientists) for statistical accuracy and error regression I can tell you what that type of data is worth on a factual level. Like I say, you need two incontrovertible sources, such as a film, and a track associated with a film. One reason you can do science on the patterson gimlin film, hard evidence. If you have a report with a those two stand alone corroborations then you can keep it. My guess is less than 2% are of that quality. Which is the same as a statistical fluke or outlier, within the realm of normal rounding error. Now that's science! I just eliminated the BFRO in one analysis! Do you find it useful? That's not what I'm arguing about. But about what can be used for science analysis that is mathematically relevant. One reason it's hard to convict or prove anything on circumstantial evidence (no proof). Edited July 22, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 22, 2016 SSR Team Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, norseman said: I think what is being said is that 1 sighting or a million sightings? Science places no value on any of it, unlike a judicial proceeding evidently. Its mind boogling but its easier to convict and execute a person. Than it is to establish a new species. More fool science then if that is its stance. Science loses there. Edited July 22, 2016 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts