Leaderboard

DWA - It's unfair to apply your personal bias as to what "evidence" is to science at large. When dealing with science you have to accept the definition of evidence that science accepts - it's no different than dealing with any other industry or institution. You may feel your bank should keep an extra $10000 in your account but they probably don't agree and they make the rules. When in Rome... We can know it's possible a witness saw what they claim. We can feel it's probable they are right or wrong. We can't know either way without testable results, hence the reason it's not evidence. I don't know what WSA's life experience has taught him in total but I can assure you it's not what's needed to definitively assert the veracity of anonymous anecdotal claims he hasn't examined. Science can't examine claims without testing therefore they can't come to a conclusion. For example, we could know you or WSA were reliable judges of truth if one of you claimed the prize from Randi as I suggested as a possible experiment above. Without proof all we have is your assertion which doesn't rise to the level of evidence. It's simple really and should not be the cause of so such angst on your part. It's how our world works, accept it and move on. I think you have me mistaken for someone else, I haven't changed my mind about the PGF. It's inconclusive with no consensus in my opinion. Keeps me coming back though, just hoping for something definitive. WSA - The world doesn't need to be hyper-empirical but testing has to be or it's worthless. Your cardiologist wouldn't have to predict anything about your inverted T wave. He'd listen to your account then look for testable evidence like previous EKG's and Troponin levels before making up his mind concerning your treatment plan. It has to work that way or everyone with abnormal EKG's would receive expensive and unwarranted treatment to the possible detriment of the patient. It has to work that way with sassy too. We examine the account before we test what's possible and come to a conclusion. Conclusions without testing don't work.

If none of it can be proven to be real, then how can you call any of it "real stuff"? Uh huh, a sasquatch that's anatomically the same as an elk. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skookum_hokum.htm Yet many casts by those people are still being sold at Bigfoot conventions and still being presented as evidence, even by Meldrum. What about all the samples for both DNA studies? They must have not been Bigfoot evidence either.. This was you marveling at 'real Bigfoot evidence' on April 1st: "a sound at the end that nothing else in NA makes.." "how 'bout, finding hair that no one can match with anything known.." "Those who specialize in hip-shoot analysis and never think about the details will totally gloss over how practically every single subtlety one would expect in a legitimate scientific newsflash is present here.." "To anyone tossing the usual scoff brickbats all I can say is: the denial is strong in that one, Luke." Do you really think you should be the one preaching about what's evidence and what isn't?

All bias is REAL regardless of whether you realize you are applying it or not and it's sometimes very difficult to control. If you apply yourself you will improve with practice. People, all 7 billion + of us, are unique and have our own agendas and biases. You are applying a bias when you feel you can winnow results down on the basis of your extremely limited experience when dealing with all of humanity and come up with some meaningful conclusions without investigation of evidence. Once you realize your limitations and biases you can design an experiment where your personal bias can be removed as much as possible and you can move forward. Obviously, evidence other than sighting reports will be needed since science won't accept sighting reports when it comes to recognizing a previously unknown animal. As you say, NO SHORT CUTS. Hopefully you will bring your results back here and share!

CM that would be great indeed, but no we did not get footage of the coyote making that call! Myself, I was carrying a still camera that day. One which would take short bad video. The type you used to put an old floppy disk in. No longer use it. Gerry had a camera that day as well be he didn't get it recorded ether. Dumb mistake on our part no doubt about that. In fact I spent, I don't know how many hours on the Chehalis flats after that, trying to get this on video. But never saw a coyote make this type of cry again. In fact i still have not seen a coyote make this call. But I have seen many coyotes since then making the fa miler yip, yip type sound we have all heard a million times over. It was bad judgement on my part that day and I have kicked myself over and over for it. When we saw what we saw our reaction was for about 10 seconds, 'Dam, it's only a coyote'! And by the time I had the camera up a second coyote had come out of the bush and it looked like a happy reunion between to puppies as they jumped all over each other, and bounded away towards Morris valley road. Thomas Steenburg

Real skeptics have an open mind and realize that while the circumstantial evidence is not enough, it is suggestive and worthy of continued study. I'm a skeptic and go out looking for signs of existence. Only a fool without regard for the scientific method would close his/her mind and declare the matter settled. Then there is the armchair skeptic...

It's still only a belief system regardless of who or how many have an encounter. I would rather see Bigfoot become a tangible scientific fact.

Don't call them skeptics, they are not, they are scofftics/denialists. And the true believers do the same thing.

Umm, sorry, but that ain't happening.