Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

Not if it can paralyze you.

[Guest DWA]

Not if I shoot first; which is why I don't use tigers to discount evidence for a bipedal ape.

[Guest]

Not if I shoot first; which is why I don't use tigers to discount evidence for a bipedal ape.

You brought them up.

[Guest]

Given the history of science, that is (1) not the way to go about science, proven over and over . . .

You do realize that the first specimens of lowland gorilla, mountain gorilla, okapi*, and saola were all given to scientists by people who were not scientists, right?

*symbol of the International Society of Cryptozoology, just to add a bit of icing to this slice of irony cake

[Guest DWA]

^^^Not sure what that means I should think.

What I think is: insist on proof, and on considering all proponents fools until you have proof...and you might wind up the last fool in line. That's all.

You brought them up.

...and in doing so show the subtlety of thought essential to the scientific endeavor.

(YOU took it down the wrong track, not me.)

Other animals have it. Can't rule it out.

[WSA]

<sigh> Still stuck in the "lack-of-proof=lack-of-evidence" echo chamber. C'mon people. Everyone here should recognize the distinction and the fallacious thinking that results when you confuse these two distinct concepts.

We were discussing, I believe, the subject of how you can discern "likely" from "not" in the anecdotal reports.

I would say I (as I've said here many times) you have to read LOTS of them first. When and if you do that, you'll be able to get the feel for what we are talking about. Really, there is no shortcut I can give you that will relieve you of this obligation if you want to be serious about this. As in all matters of inquiry, look for consistencies, look for contradictions, look for independent verification, look for adherence to boundaries of natural law. Don't substitute your judgment for the witness' just because it stretches the limits of your subjective credulity. In other words, do the work. Or, if you don't feel up to that, or don't have the time to spare, give credit to those who have.

Edited February 6, 2013 by WSA

[Guest]

The "paraylzing infrasound" of tigers come from their roar and the infrasound of elephants and whales do not paraylze people.

What I think is: insist on proof, and on considering all proponents fools until you have proof...and you might wind up the last fool in line. That's all.

Insisting on proof of a species. What a crazy idea.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

You miss that presume-everyone-fools part on purpose? Not scientific at all, that.

<sigh> Still stuck in the "lack-of-proof=lack-of-evidence" echo chamber. C'mon people. Everyone here should recognize the distinction and the fallacious thinking that results when you confuse these two distinct concepts.

We were discussing, I believe, the subject of how you can discern "likely" from "not" in the anecdotal reports.

I would say I (as I've said here many times) you have to read LOTS of them first. When and if you do that, you'll be able to get the feel for what we are talking about. Really, there is no shortcut I can give you that will relieve you of this obligation if you want to be serious about this. As in all matters of inquiry, look for consistencies, look for contradictions, look for independent verification, look for adherence to boundaries of natural law. Don't substitute your judgment for the witness' just because it stretches the limits of your subjective credulity. In other words, do the work. Or, if you don't feel up to that, or don't have the time to spare, give credit to those who have.

BIG TIME PLUSSED, BUDDY! WHAMMO!

(We have our own ways to annoy the crap out of people, don't we.)

There does come a point where one just has to think: well, if they insist on calling their own special brand of total credulity 'skepticism,' and not having any fun, guess that's their prerogative.

And then one just doesn't take them seriously. (As I say: I don't come here to argue. The arguments are all on my side. This is education I'm doing.)

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

You miss that presume-everyone-fools part on purpose? Not scientific at all, that.

It doesn't matter if people are fools or not, all we know know is that there's all these claimed sightings and still no specimen.

[Guest thermalman]

The "paraylzing infrasound" of tigers come from their roar and the infrasound of elephants and whales do not paraylze people.

Infrasound is wholly used by a species for communication within their kind, and nothing else.

Edited February 6, 2013 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

Infrasound is wholly used by a species for communication within their kind, and nothing else.

Actually, that's not what research says about tigers.

http://rense.com/general7/freq.htm

[Drew]

DWA,

To what do you attribute witness claims that Bigfoot turned into their father, and then disappeared?

To what would you attribute a witness claim that Bigfoot was two feet tall and purple?

To what would you attribute a witness claim that Bigfoot turned into an orb and telepathically talked to the witness?

Would you say these people are lying? or would you say they were hallucinating? Is there another possibility?

[Guest DWA]

It doesn't matter if people are fools or not, all we know know is that there's all these claimed sightings and still no specimen.

[echo chamber] dag, you're right WSA...

Science doesn't dismiss evidence because there's no proof. Scientists on the other hand...

DWA,

To what do you attribute witness claims that Bigfoot turned into their father, and then disappeared?

To what would you attribute a witness claim that Bigfoot was two feet tall and purple?

To what would you attribute a witness claim that Bigfoot turned into an orb and telepathically talked to the witness?

Would you say these people are lying? or would you say they were hallucinating? Is there another possibility?

I would say: don't matter to me, 'cause those aren't in my database. Unless you can show me hundreds of them, by witnesses I'd have no reason to doubt.

Edited February 6, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

[echo chamber] dag, you're right WSA...

Science doesn't dismiss evidence because there's no proof. Scientists on the other hand...

Translation: I don't have to bring in a specimen. I'll stick to my campfire stories.

[dmaker]

<sigh> Still stuck in the "lack-of-proof=lack-of-evidence" echo chamber. C'mon people. Everyone here should recognize the distinction and the fallacious thinking that results when you confuse these two distinct concepts.

We were discussing, I believe, the subject of how you can discern "likely" from "not" in the anecdotal reports.

I would say I (as I've said here many times) you have to read LOTS of them first. When and if you do that, you'll be able to get the feel for what we are talking about. Really, there is no shortcut I can give you that will relieve you of this obligation if you want to be serious about this. As in all matters of inquiry, look for consistencies, look for contradictions, look for independent verification, look for adherence to boundaries of natural law. Don't substitute your judgment for the witness' just because it stretches the limits of your subjective credulity. In other words, do the work. Or, if you don't feel up to that, or don't have the time to spare, give credit to those who have.

Do you or DWA have a file with these reports handy? Or is the pile you two refer to often a figurative one? I'd be curious to read the body of reports that you two consider worthy of follow-up investigation. Not so I can debunk it, but out of genuine interest. Sure you can say that that would be doing the work for me, and you would be right to a point. All you're doing is separating the wheat from the chaff--or what you consider them to be. I would think you would be happy to hasten the road to enlightenment for some of us. Even if that means helping us get to the "good stuff" from the report databases. If not, then fine, I tried. Let's suppose that someone has read all of these reports but still does not place as much emphasis on them as you two do. What then? Can that person then debate with you without being subject to your derision about "not being acquainted with the evidence"? Or is it not possible for someone,lay or otherwise, to read this body of evidence and not share your opinion?