Leaderboard

To anyone unaware, Carl Sagan wrote of the dragon in his garage in his book The Demon Haunted World. The Dragon in My Garage A story from "The Demon Haunted World", by Carl Sagan "A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage." Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! "Show me", you say, and I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle - but no dragon "Where's the dragon", you ask. "Oh, she's right here", I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. "Good idea", I say, "but this dragon floats in the air". Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. "Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless", I say. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. "Good idea, except she's an incorporeal (bodyless) dragon and the paint won't stick!" And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. Now what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? You're inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

I know where a clan lives. I know where that clan gets their water. I know where that clan feeds. Thus, any time I decide, I have the proof. But I can't let a top scientific outfit like the Smithsonian get it, as they've already lost over a dozen giant skeletons and skulls. If that's the kind of "proof" you speak of. The kind agencies, universities, and scientific organizations seem most unwilling to share. Well do you now? And what is the mechanism that prevents you from contacting, John Green, Jeff Meldrum, Jack Bindernagle, Loren Coleman, Kelly Shaw? Any one of them would jump at the chance. Mechanism? There seems to be an occasional lack of foresight when this subject is broached. What exactly makes you assume that contacting these folks would put this thing to bed? You get the right evidence, any anthropologist can come to the right conclusions. I know some like to scoff and blow about not obtaining and releasing evidence if you have access. Again, that requires a lack of foresight. Scenario 1: I return to that mountain, I get a really good, clear, detailed photograph and release it. Some will say it's contrived, some will say it's faked, some will say it's real, and I've just jumped on the Bigfoot Carousel - just one big circular ride that goes nowhere. No thanks. I don't have the inclination, patience, nor hunger. Scenario 2: I return to that mountain. I know where a clan lives, where they drink, and where they hunt. I know where to go, how to bring them in, what precursor engineering is required to neutralize their significant behaviors, capabilities, and tendencies, what we can get away with and what we can't, what to bring, how much to bring, what arouses their curiosity, what they're adverse to, who to bring and their capabilities, and exactly what all this costs. Now, instead of a single photo, I'm able to collect videos of multiple visitations. Maybe ten visits, maybe twenty visits, maybe more. Each visit is captured with five or six different cameras with different capabilities through different technologies, from two angles, concentrated in two separate, identical locations. Twenty visits, for example, captured by five cameras, means from one angle, there are 100 separate videos. And the duplicate pod at a different angle, doubles that number. Twenty visits means 200 separate videos. Each captures elements the others don't. Lots there for comparative analysis. Twenty visits over four months is easily doable. If we just went and pitched tents for four months, we'd have that many visitations with them walking around our tents, and frequently just standing outside. I've already had my up close and personal. I don't care to benefit the human knowledge bank. I have no burning desire to convince skeptics. I'm certainly not an enthusiast. I'm not impressed by academia. I'm not a Bigfoot Researcher, many of whom I admire here, who put in the work. That's just not me. I go, it will be done right or not at all. And I expect to at least recover my investment. I was born at night. Just wasn't last night.

I have a dragon in my garage.

... they are telling us, virtually in so many words, by the very things they say that they are unfamiliar with the evidence. Have you got a body? If you don't have a body then you've got nothing. Not exactly true. I have the pure, ice-cold realization right now that there is at least two massive hominids that exist. Two black ones, and one cinnamon colored I didn't see but two companions saw on the same mountain. No guesswork, no mistaken identity, and 100% certainty. You may think I have nothing - but I think you're the one that has - nothing. You weren't there. You didn't see it. You didn't experience your world being drastically altered and simultaneously expanded in short moments. I actually have something. You're the one that has nothing.

Well, if there were an actual skeptic with a credentialed scientific backgroung on the forum, my tolerance for such questions would be greater.... assuming that the credentialed skeptical scientist were objective, respectful, and professional. What we are actually subjected to, however, is a series of self-important blow hards, who subjectively define the scientific process to suit their preference, constantly redefine that by the post and even engage in personal attacks to harass proponents. After the 19th or 20th such person engages you it gets old.

It's that vegan diet she's on. here Leaftalker, have a Snickers. you're not yourself when you're hungry. Looks like LT was emphasizing what she said, but I don't know, maybe I need a Snickers too.

The preponderance of evidence comes into play here. The disconnect comes when the two sides evaluate the proffered evidence. Those who believe that Bigfoot do/might exist place more weight on that evidence being true than those who believe that bigfoot do not exist. Those who know that bigfoot exist and those who believe that bigfoot can not exist are beyond reasoning with. Their worldview is fixed.