WSA Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Don't we always see in history how the unexamined idea that one group of similar unexplained things is exactly like another unexplained thing clouds the judgment? Discernment, and the ability to articulate reasons for it should be what is valued here and promoted, not the clumsy lumping of phenomena together to avoid that. But the "Fairies, UFO's, Dragons, Leprechauns.." rhetoric continues unabated... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) ^^^An indictment, WSA, of the Western educational system, at the very least. An assumption can never be stated as a conclusion in any scientific field; this is one of the biggest red flags in science, hell, in logical thought...and no "scientist" seems to notice it's been going on here time out of mind. If you can't do science, you may be a well-taught techie, but you ain't no scientist. Edited December 8, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) Dr. Bindernagel is not science, he's a scientist whose opinion doesn't match the vast majority of others in his field, meaning there's an extremely good possibility he's mistaken. WSA's legal advice will never trump science when dealing with actual science. His "discernment" counts for naught when actually determining if reports are true as he will freely admit after having it pointed out and explained to him enough times - just check out the many threads where he has tried to post such nonsense. It doesn't matter how badly you want the tales from the ten acre Sassy corral in OK to be true, they will have to be proven with evidence, not stories about how they can't or won't collect evidence. The mystery may be all folks like WSA and you need, science and scientists want proof but need actual evidence to get there. We aren't dealing with "unexplained ideas", we are dealing with a lack of physical evidence which can't be replaced by anecdotal sighting reports no matter how many times you ineptly post the ridiculous idea that it can or should. Scientists, real honest to goodness scientists can find no proof of Sassy but it's not from lack of trying or even using cutting edge techniques. NAWAC can't find proof of Sassy (or even scat, video, photos or blood on a 10 acre property they supposedly cover well every year since 2000?) even though they claim numerous up close sightings and interactions including drawing blood during shootings. Even Sassyfoot has given up on trying to prove Sassy and she has a NAWAC style hab site in her backyard. Maybe folks like Sassyfoot and groups like NAWAC are involved in government sponsored psy ops, maybe not. Which is more likely and why according to our poor western educational teachings? Edited December 9, 2015 by WV FOOTER Edit Text 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) . Dr. Bindernagel is not science, he's a scientist whose opinion doesn't match the vast majority of others in his field, meaning there's an extremely good possibility he's mistaken. WSA's legal advice will never trump science when dealing with actual science. His "discernment" counts for naught when actually determining if reports are true as he will freely admit after having it pointed out and explained to him enough times - just check out the many threads where he has tried to post such nonsense. It doesn't matter how badly you want the tales from the ten acre Sassy corral in OK to be true, they will have to be proven with evidence, not stories about how they can't or won't collect evidence. The mystery may be all folks like WSA and you need, science and scientists want proof but need actual evidence to get there. We aren't dealing with "unexplained ideas", we are dealing with a lack of physical evidence which can't be replaced by anecdotal sighting reports no matter how many times you ineptly post the ridiculous idea that it can or should. Scientists, real honest to goodness scientists can find no proof of Sassy but it's not from lack of trying or even using cutting edge techniques. NAWAC can't find proof of Sassy (or even scat, video, photos or blood on a 10 acre property they supposedly cover well every year since 2000?) even though they claim numerous up close sightings and interactions including drawing blood during shootings. Even Sassyfoot has given up on trying to prove Sassy and she has a NAWAC style hab site in her backyard. Maybe folks like Sassyfoot and groups like NAWAC are involved in government sponsored psy ops, maybe not. Which is more likely and why according to our poor western educational teachings? wow, ^^ F.T.W. !! Edited December 9, 2015 by WV FOOTER Edit Text 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 So I guess Bill, what you are saying is: The weight of my opinions are about equal to yours? Not a problem, I assure you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Except for his perception that opinions without foundation are equal to opinions supported by evidence. A major problem, I assure you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 WSA - Not exactly but close. Our unsupported opinions are equal which is why sightings of Fairies, Chupacabras and Sassy are treated equally. Opinions supported by evidence are treated differently from those which aren't. It's why sightings of crypto creatures don't hold the same weight as sightings of known creatures supported by evidence. Opinions supported by evidence which has been mulled over by other experts can reach the level of consensus - still an opinion with other possibilities possible but well known and understood by most in a field. This type of opinion holds more weight because it has been defended and survived, not because it's an opinion. I know you aren't a fan of western education but there are many primers and textbooks out there that cover these topics if you would like a second opinion? It won't hurt my feelings at all, you should be skeptical of unsupported claims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Hello xspider1, My understanding of the definition of the term psi-ops is: 'propaganda and psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors'. Are you suggesting that a majority of Bigfoot reports fall into that category? What do you mean by majority? I was more about phone call-ins that are not vetted beyond, "they soun Edited December 9, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Bill...I should live so long. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) No problem, let me know if I can clear up anything else for you. If you ever do get some time I have some suggestions on good books that range from basic primers to post grad level and even some really good books written for laymen, just let me know. Maybe you missed it earlier (post 93 above) but I'm still interested in your take on the possibility that folks like Sassyfoot and groups like NAWAC could by involved in government sponsored psy ops if you have time? Edited December 9, 2015 by ohiobill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted December 10, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 10, 2015 psychological tactics to influence emotions and behaviors Is this not what the creatures gaining from us? You would think that this would be used on us as a human factor to draw us away from actually searching for them. But instead it could be a tactic used by them to gain knowledge of us. As far as where have all the giants gone? well maybe some of their bones could very well be sitting in the back room of some museum collecting dust where it will remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Giants happen in a number of species...like ours. I don't doubt that giants are out there. But the averages are consistent; and it is more, and not less, impressive that these averages are coming from people giving eyeball estimates that no one could trust as hard data. That's what volume and consistency can do for you. Then why does consistency and the volume not product more hard verifiable evidence? I'd say its just as easy to claim that the likes of shows like Finding Bigfoot and the various websites such as BFRO put into peoples mind the "ideal" bigfoot thus false reports follow the patterns laid out by those sources. I think what is needed are better fake Sasquatches, the bar is too low with blob squatches, cloaked Bigfoot, etc. I think Better Fakes is definitely the way to go. Quality over quantity. My proposal is to make a world class animation model that would be indistinguishable from the real thing, based on P. Biosei, with a convincing stride and realistic hair and texturing. With the inventive use of a blue screen you can insert into the foliages and landscapes of your choice. What would happen when the quality fakes crowd out all the boring crappy hoaxes? I believe an elevated discussion would follow about the relative merits of the mental models we propose for a Bigfoot. The only problem is that it will produce a higher noise to signal ratio for the serious researcher but simultaneously may drive the conversation in the direction of actual relic homonoids and homonids and eclipse psychic inter-dimensional UFO portal hopper rhetoricians. Perhaps creating a hybrid model of Homo Erectus or Habilis and a Neanderthal or Heidelbergensis and admixing the digital DNA with some giganticized hobbit or Apelike features of a "Lucy" to illustrate the principal of DNA diffusion and multiple inheritances of a host of individuals species that never made it into the fossil record as they were not present in the fossil bearing shale of the Rift Valley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) My guess is that people who might have seen something this large would be even less likely to want to explain that fact to others. Sightings like this still do occur, but have never been the norm. Alaska is a good spot to look for the 12 plus footers, or anywhere along that coastline south, but the shorter American Sasquatch, as in US type tend to be a bit crowded in the lower 48 and have passed immigration reform laws against the giants, and there even larger excrements. I once heard a formula that would put a 28 inch track over 10 foot, well I have to find that thing and repost. This table shows an estimation of height by foot print size, John Green and other contributed to this hypothesis, and they also show that tracks above 20 inches are extremely rare among all prints found, anything pushing 25 is almost unheard of....so you decide on the lack of giant hypothesis Edited December 10, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 Bill...There is more than enough exotic rationales being proposed on this topic for me to pay attention to. NAWAC being a psy-op is an explanation in search of a question, to my way of thinking. Most of the confounding-yet-explained mysteries of this world were eventually resolved with a very mundane explanation. I expect this one to be no different. The unbridgeable chasm between your view of the world, and mine, is that my knowledge and experience allow for the classification of BF as something very mundane in the context of human experience and biology. Yours (and several others' around here) allows you to see it as something exotic to the point of being an unacceptable hypothesis. You and I will never meet in the middle on that, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 10, 2015 Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) ^^^Pretty much that. A more garden-variety primate could scarcely be imagined; the most compelling thing about the accounts is the metronomical repetition of stuff we know from all the apes we know. (By people who should in no way be expected to know that, but I digress.) Sasquatch is Build-A-Primate! Combine what one knows...and one gets closer to this (not to mention a number of animals in the fossil record) as one's result than one gets to anything else. Experience in the woods, lots; interest in and knowledge about animals, lots; and - this is most critical and one almost doesn't need the other two, although they help - willingness to apply oneself diligently to the topic will practically ensure the right answer. And no, there is one; and it's not the "skeptics" who know it. Edited December 10, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts