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

[dmaker]

There is not that much evidence for Sasquatch. You cannot continue to call eye witness reports vetted by pro Bigfoot investigators valid evidence. Eye witness reports are anecdotal evidence. To paraphrase here: (anecdotal evidence is considered dubious, regardless of the veracity of the claims, and is only accepted in lieu of more solid evidence. In a scientific context, anecdotal evidence is defined as reports or observations of usually unscientific observers. It is considered the least certain type of scientific information and is the opposite of scientific evidence. It may be used for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.) paraphrased from wiki.

So if eye witness reports should only be used to suggest the idea of BF, then you are only really left with the physical evidence. Examples of which have been debunked several times now. So what is this mountain of evidence? And maybe these questions might be answered better once I get my paws on Bindernagels book. But right now, it looks like you hang the crux of your argument on dubious, unscientific "evidence".

[Guest DWA]

There is not that much evidence for Sasquatch. You cannot continue to call eye witness reports vetted by pro Bigfoot investigators valid evidence. Eye witness reports are anecdotal evidence. To paraphrase here: (anecdotal evidence is considered dubious, regardless of the veracity of the claims, and is only accepted as proof in lieu of more solid evidence. In a scientific context, anecdotal evidence is defined as reports or observations of usually unscientific observers. It is considered the least certain type of scientific information and is the opposite of scientific evidence. It may be used for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.) paraphrased from wiki.

Fixed (in bold italic). "Proof" is, actually, what "accepted" means.

Noted (in other italics) and translated into plain English as: "Anecdotal reports are not proof (gee. Where have I heard that before...), but they may place a compelling hypothesis before science (and they have)."

Hoaxers, liars and hallucinators don't combine to place a plausible biological picture before zoology. And this is where knowing how to think about what one has read comes in.

And as to how much there is: I'm taking the scientific proponents over you, every time.

So if eye witness reports should only be used to suggest the idea of BF, then you are only really left with the physical evidence. Examples of which have been debunked several times now. So what is this mountain of evidence? And maybe these questions might be answered better once I get my paws on Bindernagels book. But right now, it looks like you hang the crux of your argument on dubious, unscientific "evidence".

Nope. "Suggesting the idea" does not mean "toss something up that can be shot down without further review."

"Examples of which"? So. Just getting this straight: a few little pieces of evidence have been debunked, so toss the pile? I'd toss a scientist in jail for that. (Execution would be preferable, but I am a reasonable man.)

Here's the difference between a closed and an open mind, respectively:

You: they're all mistaken. I'd tell each one that, to their face. (Would you? I would buy a ticket. If I had to take out a second mortgage to do it.)

Me: The evidence stands, in the main, untouched. So. When you guys gonna touch it, hmmmmm?

(The mainstream's attitude could not, actually, be more "unscientific" than it is. All the science is on the proponents' side in this discussion. No skeptic could write Bindernagel's book because he would have no case to write about.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

No dmaker, DWA and I are different people. For a skeptic, you are a pretty literal cat! :-) He and I share many mutual experiences, and are the same age. We've also tramped many of the same mountain trails over the years. Many of DWA's views on this topic I share. I can assure you, he knows of what he speaks when discussing ecosystems, flora and fauna as he is an astute observer of all of those during his considerable time logged in the open. He and I agree that much of the (dare I say it) denial of BF evidence can be attributed to a lack of those kinds of experiences. Understand, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, as I'm not privileged to know what everyone's experiences are, but if somebody does spend considerable time in the outdoors, I think they have additional credibility on natural systems. If Sasquatch walks amongst us, understanding will come only from that larger view, IMHO.

As to DWA's writing style... I attribute it to too much Kerouac ingested in his formative years. I love a good language riff, and he seldom disappoints.

[dmaker]

So what's the solid evidence for Sasquatch? Eye witness reports are not solid scientific evidence. So what do you have really? And you wonder why mainstream science won't take this seriously? There does not really seem that much for them to go on. Because over the past 150 years 0.0010135% of the American population has reported seeing a Bigfoot? The total number of sightings was taken from The Sasquatch: An Unwelcome and Premature Zoological Discovery? ( Bindernagel, Journal of Scientific Exploration: 2004) And yes, I used the population figures for the US for the year that study was published.

@WSA, I spend a fair bit of time in the outdoors. Not as remote as you two no doubt. I hike at least once a week ( more in the warmer months). 90% of my hikes are done on side trails of the Bruce Trail here in Ontario. I don't consider them to be that remote, but the again looking at the reports you don't really need to be that remote for a BF sighting. But I do suspect we have traversed some pretty similar landscapes. I love the outdoors. I spent as much time out there I can hiking and kayaking and mountain biking. Not sure it makes me closer to BF though..

[Guest DWA]

All your questions have been answered on this thread, over and over.

Mainstream science will never live down its lack of involvement on this. I mean, that's gonna be pretty embarrassing. They won't be coming to Meldrum asking what the heck was up here? They'll be coming to all the people who thought mouse lemurs and monkeys more important.

Oh, BTW, I am truly impressed at the number of ways skeptics have come up with to say "no proof." It's only two words. But you guys are like, paragraphs and all! A-may-zing. Reading up on the evidence would be more fun. And thinking about it even funner.

And I do gots to say you got quite the schizoid schtick going yourself. One post, OK, I can concede this and I'm buying Bindernagel (an investment, not an expense); and then a string of hardline scoffs. It's interesting, albeit I would have to say far less fun than WSA and I are having. Just to me.

(Hey WSA: my modus operandi in school was classics pah! This book group I am in has mended some old sins. But one can do worse than Kerouac. I don't use rolls of paper for mine, though. I do miss the good old days. A pen in hand now is like a trip to the 19th Century.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

DWA: Always have appreciated the way you string words together...very athletic. Unfortunately, decades of legal, expository chores have wrung pretty much all expressiveness out of my prose.

[dmaker]

Not really a schizoid thing. Just trying to read some of the touchstone publications from your side of the argument. Like I said, BF is interesting. So I like to read ( non fiction) books regarding the subject. And yes I conceded a point about They Odyssey not being relevant enough to this discussion to hang onto an argument about it. Especially when I never introduced it in the first place. What sticks in my craw, I guess, the most is how you constantly refer to the eye witness reports as evidence. They are not scientific evidence. They are anecdotal and not falsifiable, therefore can never be considered as strong evidence. But you keep hoisting them up like they are some yellow brick road to the truth about Sasquatch. They are nothing more than a never ending treadmill that you seem to enjoy trotting on and will likely never leave. The only thing I think you hold in higher esteem than the reports is your own pseudo-scientific opinion of them and your ability to "educate" us poor skeptics. I think I would prefer to leave my education in this regard to a qualified scientist, not you.

[Guest DWA]

Well, WSA, you bring the detachment and tolerance that people who carry flamethrowers for fun just lack. (Like Johnny, I walk the line. Get burned too.)

Our styles are different enough that...welll, same person? I don't have enough stamina to pull it off.

I like to tweak, annoy, and bluster. I leave it to you to make the points. Don't think that legal training doesn't come in handy.

Not really a schizoid thing. Just trying to read some of the touchstone publications from your side of the argument. Like I said, BF is interesting. So I like to read ( non fiction) books regarding the subject. And yes I conceded a point about They Odyssey not being relevant enough to this discussion to hang onto an argument about it. Especially when I never introduced it in the first place. What sticks in my craw, I guess, the most is how you constantly refer to the eye witness reports as evidence. They are not scientific evidence. They are anecdotal and not falsifiable, therefore can never be considered as strong evidence. But you keep hoisting them up like they are some yellow brick road to the truth about Sasquatch. They are nothing more than a never ending treadmill that you seem to enjoy trotting on and will likely never leave. The only thing I think you hold in higher esteem than the reports is your own pseudo-scientific opinion of them and your ability to "educate" us poor skeptics. I think I would prefer to leave my education in this regard to a qualified scientist, not you.

And I sum it all up:

1. I have been reading qualified scientists - whose stuff rarely shows up on these websites. Good to see you coming around to that.

2. My opinion, informed by 1. above, is a lot less pseudo-scientific than the mainstream guys you cling to like babe to momma. Bring one of those guys here, I'd toast him alive. Bet on it; done it more than once.

3. And so tetchy now! Yes, I do like to knock them off balance then bore in for the kill. Just me, I guess.

4. And another WHOLE PARAGRAPH to say the letters "no proof." (Practice. No proof. NO proof. NO PROOF! NO PROOF!!!!!!!!!!) "Scientific evidence" = proof.

The open mind is a much more fun treadmill to be on. Actually, your posts have the authentic feel of a treadmill; you have pretty much said the same thing, every time you have posted. Me? As a man almost as wise as me once said: If truth comforts, it lies. Truth is an armed dancer.

Believe it, brah.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

But you have little scientific evidence, so you have no proof. And if you think you are not constantly saying the same thing, then please reread your posts, brah.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

Getting back down to earth, as it were:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=37974

And the explanation for this, is...?

Just to preempt and save us some time, I would posit this is :

A. NOT proof of the existence of a bipedal, non-human primate on the American Continent, and...

B. IS nothing more than a piece of evidence that begs to be addressed and explained in the context in which it was found.

C. Something that COULD be dismissed out of hand by anyone, as are all things..but..how?

[Guest DWA]

....and I get talked past on every post too, so I just like to have fun with prose.

Once again: "no proof" just got Weakest Sauce Ever Award, International Chefs Association. As in:

No one interested in the truth here even cares about that except to say: so when are you guys - society's arbiters of truth and all - gonna get out there and get the proof, hah? Every day's delay makes your eventual embarrassment all the greater. I mean, no skin off mine.

Getting back down to earth, as it were:

http://www.bfro.net/...rt.asp?id=37974

And the explanation for this, is...?

Just to preempt and save us some time, I would posit this is :

A. NOT proof of the existence of a bipedal, non-human primate on the American Continent, and...

B. IS nothing more than a piece of evidence that begs to be addressed and explained in the context in which it was found.

C. Something that COULD be dismissed out of hand by anyone, as are all things..but..how?

Oh come on, cut this crap out.

We all know what it is. Look, there are armies, like armies, of hoaxers out there in the woods every day doing this. In their extensive travels - they don't need jobs - they encounter the scientists who teem in the woods, who are watching every sector of the woods, full time every day. Ask jerrymander. When they meet, they smile knowingly and go on their respective ways. This Is How The Mainstream Knows. Ask dmaker.

I should add that, were one to put a pushpin in Least Likely Place for a Human Being to Simply Be, Much Less Hoax, that is precisely where that pin would be. There may be no place in AK that sees fewer people per year.

And don't you think The Omnipotent Hoaxer has already thought of that? He thinks of everything, and he is legion.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

But you have little scientific evidence, so you have no proof. And if you think you are not constantly saying the same thing, then please reread your posts, brah.

And how many of them have you addressed, with anything other than "no proof"?

I have been pounding your position, tactically and strategically, from all angles. I have reduced your numbers to three platoons of half-ration, half-armed pseudo-savages. I have committed feats of argumentative brilliance, literal tours de force. (Largely to keep from getting bored by "no proof." Again.)

And en finale, may I paraphrase:

Your positions are not scientific evidence. They are anecdotal and not falsifiable, therefore can never be considered as strong evidence. But you keep hoisting them up like they are some yellow brick road to the truth about Sasquatch. They are nothing more than a never ending treadmill that you seem to enjoy trotting on and will likely never leave. The only thing I think you hold in higher esteem than the reports is your own pseudo-scientific opinion of them and your ability to "educate" us poor proponents. I think I would prefer to leave my education in this regard to a qualified scientist, not you.

Which I have, brah.

(I'm original, too.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Thanks WSA. I think we needed something to ground us so to speak I'll read that report while I'm eating my lunch and add my thoughts.

@DWA, " I have committed feats of argumentative brilliance, literal tours de force. " Uhm, not quite sure I would say that. But tooting your own horn is not a sin, so carry on.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^But you've got to remember I am evaluating that assessment in the light of the other ones I have seen from you. Go tell that to your three platoons of half-ration, half-armed pseudo-savages.

[Design drawings for 5-Foot Pogo Stick Bigfoot Hoaxer Long-Distance Track Device available upon request. Unless you have, er, ah, another "explanation" for that report.]

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

....and I get talked past on every post too, so I just like to have fun with prose.

Once again: "no proof" just got Weakest Sauce Ever Award, International Chefs Association. As in:

No one interested in the truth here even cares about that except to say: so when are you guys - society's arbiters of truth and all - gonna get out there and get the proof, hah? Every day's delay makes your eventual embarrassment all the greater. I mean, no skin off mine.

Oh come on, cut this crap out.

We all know what it is. Look, there are armies, like armies, of hoaxers out there in the woods every day doing this. In their extensive travels - they don't need jobs - they encounter the scientists who teem in the woods, who are watching every sector of the woods, full time every day. Ask jerrymander. When they meet, they smile knowingly and go on their respective ways. This Is How The Mainstream Knows. Ask dmaker.

I should add that, were one to put a pushpin in Least Likely Place for a Human Being to Simply Be, Much Less Hoax, that is precisely where that pin would be. There may be no place in AK that sees fewer people per year.

And don't you think The Omnipotent Hoaxer has already thought of that? He thinks of everything, and he is legion.

Oh for Heaven's Sake! Stop putting words in my mouth please! I have said over and over again that I don't buy into the mass hoaxing theory. I think there are hoaxers, yes, but not in the numbers you are implying. You don't have to look far in Footery to find evidence of hoaxers, so you can't deny that point. I do believe the vast majority are simply mistaken. Mistaken due misidentifying a known animal, due to bad weather, due to bad lighting and shadows, due to undiagnosed, sub-clinical tendencies towards certain conditions, due to being pumped by local legend and storeis, due to pareidolia, due to....take your pick. I do not, and never have, subscribed to the underground army of BF hoaxers.

DWA "^^^^But you've got to remember I am evaluating that assessment in the light of the other ones I have seen from you. Go tell that to your three platoons of half-ration, half-armed pseudo-savages."

Are you implying that I am a poor writer?