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

[Guest DWA]

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.

And this is another This One Hasn't Read Up Marker.

Trust me: that is the only reasonable explanation. Other than the simple reality of sasquatch.

(And oh, that one is so simple that people saying "there's no way...in suburban neighborhoods....in big-city office buildings....behind me in line at Home Depot..." is yet another T.O.H.R.U.M. Hey, acronym! Just like LOTOH! KEWL! last one not acronym)

This is a logical point on which skeptics continually fall flat on their faces. When I talk about the volume and consistency of the evidence (not much????? TOHRUM!), here's what I mean:

from a simple logical standpoint, postulating this consistency from anything other than a family business doing nothing but this for centuries simply doesn't scan.

Random people tossing stuff up by their own independent lights simply doesn't do this. You can't get anything close to this consistency from individuals' tax returns, ferpetesake. Not happ'nin', anyone acquainted with reality would concede upon thinking (ooh, THAT word) about it.

If you disagree: TOHRUM. Simple as that. Or you just haven't thought about it. Science kinda requires that.

(And as I have already pointed out: this isn't personal incredulity. This is a scientist's bet, when the scientist has thought about it as science requires.)

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?

No, stating that ya might want to take less lightly than you do people who are demonstrably thinking about this.

[dmaker]

@WSA, I would say that report is not the result of a hoaxer unless the witness is hoaxing. Without sounding all dour and pessimistic, one cannot rule that out. I don't know this hunter from a hole in the ground, so I can't rule out that he is simply lying. I am not saying that is the case, but BF reports are hardly blemish free when it comes to honesty. Also, the picture isn't that clear, and I am not a biologist with any kind of expertise in identifying animal tracks. It's possible that it might be a bear overstep. I don't know. No one can say for sure sitting behind a computer and reading a report. I can't, you can't, DWA can't either. One of my biggest issues with the BFRO database is they are often vetted by pro-Bigfooters with no expertise in biology. This investigator has a financial background and it's not hard to assume she also has a pro Bigfoot bias. You add all of that up, and it's one big pile of Who knows? It's not likely that it's an external hoaxer, we can fairly surely rule that out unless someone known to the hunter is playing a practical joke.

@DWA, Right, so what you're basically saying is that any alternative explanation for sightings, other than being Bigfoot, is ignoring the reality of the situation? That's open minded? Ironic

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well this is nothing more than why we don't consider them proof either.

And it is worth adding here that I do not know of a single skeptic on this topic who (1) has the expertise and (2) has applied it effectively to a negative take on this topic.

Sorta defines "wide-open question," doncha think?

@DWA, Right, so what you're basically saying is that any alternative explanation for sightings, other than being Bigfoot, is ignoring the reality of the situation? That's open minded? Ironic

No, STATING that alternative "explanations" that are just tossing crap at a wall to see what sticks don't cut it.

You think that's it? PROVE it, and yes you have to.

Tossing crap at a wall and yelling "case closed!" is about as close-minded as the term comes. No irony needed. "They're all mistaken?" Prime example.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I believe Saskeptic is a biologist, no?

DWA "You think that's it? PROVE it, and yes you have to." Er, wrong again. You can't prove something that isn't falsifiable. That's not the much touted scientific way. So stop asking people to veer from the scientific method when it suits your cause, but adhere to it at other times.

They are not all mistaken. Some are lying, some are being hoaxed, some peoples' minds are playing tricks on them, and yes, some are mistaken. But none of them are seeing a Bigfoot.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I believe Saskeptic is a biologist, no?

DWA "You think that's it? PROVE it, and yes you have to." Er, wrong again. You can't prove something that isn't falsifiable. That's not the much touted scientific way. So stop asking people to veer from the scientific method when it suits your cause, but adhere to it at other times.

Saskeptic is about the best example I can come up with of someone who has refused to apply his expertise to the evidence. From a scientific standpoint, his argument doesn't wash. It's nothing but a pile of assumptions with nothing to back them up. And citing him as your backup is a bald argument from authority. (Meldrum and Bindernagel put their degrees to use on this topic. Saskeptic doesn't. "Should have been confirmed by 1600" is not a scientific position to take.)

Not asking anyone to veer from anything. You saw, clearly, what I said is prohiibited. So stop throwing crap at walls and yelling case closed.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

You know as well as I do, that I cannot prove a misidentification, or a subconscious mind fabrication. So yes, you are asking for me to prove or disprove something that is not falsifiable. And you cannot do that in science. Scientific evidence must be falsifiable.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Another thing you can't do in science: assert what you can't prove.

Crytozoology will be a science when the door is slammed on that.

[dmaker]

That's where you are mistaken. There are studies that prove that people see things that are not there all the time. This is offered sometimes as an explanation for some Bigfoot sightings that are not outright lies. It's a far better assertion than they saw an animal that does not exist. You want to refute that? Provide a Bigfoot and I will eat crow.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

That's where you are mistaken. There are studies that prove that people see things that are not there all the time. This is offered sometimes as an explanation for some Bigfoot sightings that are not outright lies. It's a far better assertion than they saw an animal that does not exist. You want to refute that? Provide a Bigfoot and I will eat crow.

Um, no. (There needs to be a Science Handbook for folks like you.)

Those studies do nothing to invalidate anyone's claim of what they saw unless it can be proven, in the case of that specific sighting, that that mechanism was at work. Oh yes I'm right. Because otherwise your neat little study provides a neat little excuse to stay in an armchair and call somebody deluded.

Once again: you don't get to use an assumption to discount evidence. Science forbids it. That it's "a far better assertion than that they saw an animal that does not exist?" Two assumptions, the first untenable, the second handily done away with by evidence.

(Watch him say "not proven" again. Is that weak sauce in my water supply? Um, how would I know?)

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^^^Another thing you can't do in science: assert what you can't prove.

Like the existence of Bigfoot? Maybe you should stop doing that then, Mr.Science.

[Guest DWA]

Um, the existence of bigfoot can be proven, and all the evidence points to it.

But you knew Mr. Science would know that!

[dmaker]

^^ You're right. Just seems that no one can do it. Which is just one more reason in a very, very, very long list of them to doubt the existence.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^My argument with you - and I'll stop using it as soon as it's warranted - is that almost no one is trying, for almost no time.

I could argue further that with lots of little critters science is finding "all the time," the mainstream expects to find stuff like that, so inconclusive evidence (of which bigfootery has found many metric tons) gets followed up to proof. (As in, funded.)

'Footer sees x, and dang! Has to go back to work!

Mainstreamer sees y,....and he/she gets paid to stay out there to confirmation. That's their job. There's your difference.

[dmaker]

Yeah, I can see your argument. I think we both understand each other. And I just noticed in another thread that we both actually agreed on something today! Spending your money on Ketchums' study would be a huge waste of $30. I agree. I'll happily plunk down $56 for a book from Bindernagel, but no way I am shelling out even a nickel to Ketchum for anything.

[Guest DWA]

Yeah, I can see your argument. I think we both understand each other. And I just noticed in another thread that we both actually agreed on something today! Spending your money on Ketchums' study would be a huge waste of $30. I agree. I'll happily plunk down $56 for a book from Bindernagel, but no way I am shelling out even a nickel to Ketchum for anything.

This is one place I have run into the soft-headed component of the proponent fringe.

I will never buy somebody's story (e.g. a habituation tale like Carter Farm) unless I know, in advance, that the proof (photos; video DVD; photos; DVD; did I mention photos? and DVD?, with, um, video?) are gonna be in there. People say to me wha? What makes you think all those people who call it an ape are right? It's human! Ketchum says so and you will buy a book from that Bindernagel with no proof and not buy this paper (or this tale from one person, essentially a long sighting report for which you are asking me to, um, PAY...??? I'm looking at you, Enoch) or believe habituators when they are seeing it and can tell you that BF telepathically turns off cameras and...???

What makes Meldrum, Bindernagel, and Alley worth shelling out the money is that there is nowhere else where one can find, in conveniently readable form, the scientific case for sasquatch. That there, holy cow, is one. And that the skeptics aren't addressing it.

I'll either pay for a scientific treatment, or the proof. Ketchum is striking me as neither.

(Oh. A skeptical treatment that shows me fatal flaws in the evidence? All over it. How much? Slam, on the counter.)