dmaker Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Give science something testable and verifiable and it will confirm. Stories can't be confirmed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I sure hope so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 "When there hasn't been anything like this that science hasn't confirmed..." DW When did science confirm alien visitation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Hey Dmaker, I'd lay the odds of you receiving a straight answer, ever, from that member at 100 to 1. I think some of the responses in this thread and the "where does sasquatch NOT exist" thread show one of the larger issues in this "field of research". There is no consistency in reports or consensus of opinion about what is even probable/likely/possible with regard to the monster. There are people like Norseman who seem basically rational and then there are others who are sure that the gubbermint is hiding the sasquatch bodies. When dealing with mythical monster, any and all behaviors are equally likely I suppose.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Alien visitation and the existence of Sasquatch aren't the same. The only similarity between the two is that they're both unproven. To prove the existence of Sasquatch, all you need is a specimen. More evidence isn't going to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 DMaker (Welcome Back, BTW) have you met Bohdi? He sort of took your place debating DWA while you where away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) Alien visitation and the existence of Sasquatch aren't the same. The only similarity between the two is that they're both unproven. To prove the existence of Sasquatch, all you need is a specimen. More evidence isn't going to do it. Both have loads of anecdotal reports, visual evidence, physical evidence, backing by PhD's, government conspiracies, historical background, etc. Both would also be proven with a specimen. In terms if science how are they really different? Edited September 5, 2015 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) It's not the form of evidence that's different, but the nature of the evidence. With that being said though, I don't think there's anything exactly like the Bigfoot phenomenon, so I don't think the Bigfoot phenomenon is being treated unfairly by scientists compared to phenomenons that appear similar. Some of the circumstances are just very unique. Edited September 5, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted September 5, 2015 Admin Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) I myself have a question of Bigfoot ' existence. Gotta see it to believe it. With that being said, what was it we heard last summer gigantor? That is one thing that keeps me "on the fence" and looking for answers. I just don't know what it was... Edited September 5, 2015 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 It's not the form of evidence that's different, but the nature of the evidence. With that being said though, I don't think there's anything exactly like the Bigfoot phenomenon, so I don't think the Bigfoot phenomenon is being treated unfairly by scientists compared to phenomenons that appear similar. Some of the circumstances are just very unique. How is the "nature" of the evidence different? Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Alien visitation and the existence of Sasquatch aren't the same. The only similarity between the two is that they're both unproven. To prove the existence of Sasquatch, all you need is a specimen. More evidence isn't going to do it. Both have loads of anecdotal reports, visual evidence, physical evidence, backing by PhD's, government conspiracies, historical background, etc. Both would also be proven with a specimen. In terms if science how are they really different? Um? One target species is an animal that lives in the woods? And the other is probably a type 3 civilization that has harnessed the power of stars? In a encounter between a Alien species vs Humans? Which one is going to end up the specimen? If you have any faith in science at all then I think you need to rethink your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 I am not sure what your point is, Norse. What does a confrontation between humans and aliens vs humans and bigfoot have to do with the the evidence available for both? Nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Absolutely it does! How do you propose to get a DNA sample from an Alien? Let alone a type specimen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 That wasn't my point. I was simply drawing a comparison as a counter to DWAs point that everything with similar evidence has already been confirmed by science. Well, bigfoot and alien visitation have comparable evidence levels. When did science confirm alien visitation? It wasn't a serious challenge for someone to prove alien visitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 DWA was talking about acceptence within the scienfific community. For an animal to be accepted as real, there usually needs to be proof. It'd a lot harder to prove alien visitation than the existence of Sasquatch, even though there are similarities in the form and quality of evidence. A much better example in my opinion would be something like the Oran Pendek. It's very similar to Bigfoot and there's even fossil evidence to support it, but it's not accepted as real. The biggest issue here really is the lack of a type specimen. If someone can get one dead or alive, then Bigfoot won't be treated much differently then any other known animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts