Leaderboard

Again we come back to the question of proof vs. evidence. The Charlie Brown analogy is dealing with asking for EVIDENCE, and then ripping it to shreds out of dogma. If your asking for proof? And he presents it? Then Lucy has no choice but to dutifully hold the ball while Charlie kicks it through the uprights. Skeptics nor scientists can rip the ball away with a slab monkey. It's over.......done. Stick a fork in it. Let's examine the facts shall we? 1) Is the NAWAC committed to collecting a type specimen? Yes. 2) Is the NAWAC asking skeptics to accept the creature on anything less than said collection? No. 3) Why does the NAWAC talk about evidence? Because examination of the evidence is how we go about collecting a type specimen. 4) Why does the NAWAC keep a thread open on the BFF for people to talk about evidence? Two fold, one it keeps people in the community informed. And two it's a way to get different perspectives and ideas that will help with the pursuit. Drew? The NAWAC, Project Grendel and I'm sure other organizations as well are on your side? Why? Because skeptics rightfully demand proof, as well, you guys seem to claim that you would rejoice if you were wrong and we are right, and such a discovery is made. So where is the problem? The organizations mentioned are going out there armed, looking for said tangible proof. People in this thread recently asked to see NAWAC foot casts......... Bipto responded that they don't really matter anyway, so they don't really take much time with them. I couldn't agree more. The NAWAC gets "it". Foot casts provide sensationalism but no real tangible proof. The only good track is the one the animal is standing in. So no.........nobody in this thread is asking you to accept anything less than real proof. But as far as evidence discussions? Roll up your sleeves and help or get out of the way. A person can be skeptical but still add thoughtful insight into the discussion!

Which is what everyone participating in this thread agrees with and acknowledges. What is silly about it that you keep bringing up that point as if Bipto and his crew are asking that we accept his evidence as proof. I think Bipto's actions show that he himself knows the evidence does not amount to proof. Otherwise, why would he still be out there?

What is silly is that in this thread? Nobody is asking you to accept stories and rock throwing as proof.... The proponents in this thread are very committed to getting you that proof. Is there some confusion here with this point? But there is a process involved with getting proof, it just doesn't happen out of thin air.

Unless the tracks are obviously faked. I missed this bit. Isn't this the rub? Isn't this how it always works? Skeptics demand evidence, investigators present evidence, skeptics say it's not good enough/faked/unsubstantiated/contaminated/fill in your issue. Rinse. Repeat. It's like you're Lucy and we're Charlie Brown and you expect us to try and kick that football again. No, not just skeptics. Scientists would require more than squished nuts, thrown rocks, weird sounds, and the testimony of a dozen people who think they saw an UPRIGHT NORTH AMERICAN APE, in the once decimated forests of Oklahoma. You know this, yet you make the skeptics out to be the bad guys. You are claiming to be in the presence of the Ultimate Zoological discovery of the 21st century, and you get bent, when actual evidence is asked-for. You are not Charlie Brown, and skeptics are not Lucy. That comparison is invalid. I am simply asking for the same standard of evidence that is used to catalog every animal that has been documented for the last 400 years or so. Nothing more. My request is as bland and simple as can be expected, considering the Enormity of the claim you are making. Your confusing evidence with proof...........which skeptics do over and over again. Bipto is not getting bent over you or any scientist asking for "actual evidence" aka proof. On the contrary he and his organization are working very hard to deliver that proof to you. But in the mean time? It's like skeptics don't want to talk about any evidence, which is not how hunting an animal works. If this forum was dedicated to bear hunting instead of Sasquatch? Would you observe hunters talking about tracks? Calls? Habitat? Tactics? Rifles? Binoculars? Size? Gender? Etc? Why yes.........yes we would. Nobody is asking you or any other skeptic to accept a track as proof, but for the hunter it's still a very valid talking point in the practice of tracking a animal and harvesting it. I think skeptics feel they need to attack any evidence shown because, if they do not do so it somehow gives legitimacy to the existence of the creature........ the NAWAC is way past that stage in the game. In their mind that fact is already established. This is where skeptics become the bad guys.......... any time evidence is talked about they start bringing up pink unicorns and lack of proof. It does nothing to further the discussion, nor in this example does it further the case that a type specimen is needed for proof. The NAWAC is very committed to this endeavor, unlike other organizations. So what is your beef?