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

[WSA]

dmaker.... but consider this: Does the probability for BF proof go up, down, or remain the same with each such report? I'd assume you'd agree the probability doesn't go down, certainly. Unless you greet each such piece of evidence with "BF can't exist" (which, to your credit, you haven't), you have to also agree, I think, the probability doesn't remain the same. This leaves us with only one trend. This trend is a couple of hundred years old, I might add. Then, we can quibble about what amount it increases the probability, but that is really beside the point.

You might also consider that somebody who hunts in the remote area described in this report would know a bear track from anything else. I believe he said as much, didn't he? In my line of work, substituting your personal beliefs/judgment for that of the witness is always an invitation to fall on your face. I would advise against it.

You seem like a very nice person, as best I can judge, so don't take this the wrong way, but do you live in a world where it is useful to not take things at their face value? Must make for an exceptionally hard life, and one I'm glad to have avoided. If you don't do that typically, I might ask why you are prone to such an attitude just on this subject?My experience is also that such is way more typical of individuals (not you, necessarily, but definitely some others)who live in large population centers and don't get outside much. Given the trends in virtual living, I regret this is likely to increase. But, have you ever considered that those who find the plausibility of Sasquatch more likely also spend a lot of time outside, in supposed BF habit? I'm not just talking about folks deliberately looking for them, but mainly people in outdoor occupations especially. There is a reason for that, and not as far as I know is it due to an inherent gullibility or predisposition to prank folks.

Let me also ditto on DWA's comment about hallucinations/dissociative disorders/acid flashbacks, or whatever the explanation du jour is to explain sightings. Yes, unless you can bring that analysis to the sighting in question and establish it as a probable (or even possible) fact, you are shoveling smoke. Evidence can only be refuted by other evidence. I remember well one of the first cases I ever tried before a jury. My client was getting absolutely hammered by the evidence, including some things that my client had not cared to share with me before the trial. When I got him out in the hall during a recess and confronted him with the realities of that, his only suggestion was to tell the jury it wasn't true. A remarkably poor strategy, and the equivelant of what I see here regularly. You can predict how that story ends.

[Guest DWA]

^^^"Shoveling smoke." I couldn't bring phrases like that if I tried. Archive, my man. I want the book when you're done. I'll pay money.

[dmaker]

dmaker.... but consider this: Does the probability for BF proof go up, down, or remain the same with each such report? I'd assume you'd agree the probability doesn't go down, certainly. Unless you greet each such piece of evidence with "BF can't exist" (which, to your credit, you haven't), you have to also agree, I think, the probability doesn't remain the same. This leaves us with only one trend. This trend is a couple of hundred years old, I might add. Then, we can quibble about what amount it increases the probability, but that is really beside the point.

You might also consider that somebody who hunts in the remote area described in this report would know a bear track from anything else. I believe he said as much, didn't he? In my line of work, substituting your personal beliefs/judgment for that of the witness is always an invitation to fall on your face. I would advise against it.

You seem like a very nice person, as best I can judge, so don't take this the wrong way, but do you live in a world where it is useful to not take things at their face value? Must make for an exceptionally hard life, and one I'm glad to have avoided. If you don't do that typically, I might ask why you are prone to such an attitude just on this subject?My experience is also that such is way more typical of individuals (not you, necessarily, but definitely some others)who live in large population centers and don't get outside much. Given the trends in virtual living, I regret this is likely to increase. But, have you ever considered that those who find the plausibility of Sasquatch more likely also spend a lot of time outside, in supposed BF habit? I'm not just talking about folks deliberately looking for them, but mainly people in outdoor occupations especially. There is a reason for that, and not as far as I know is it due to an inherent gullibility or predisposition to prank folks.

Let me also ditto on DWA's comment about hallucinations/dissociative disorders/acid flashbacks, or whatever the explanation du jour is to explain sightings. Yes, unless you can bring that analysis to the sighting in question and establish it as a probable (or even possible) fact, you are shoveling smoke. Evidence can only be refuted by other evidence. I remember well one of the first cases I ever tried before a jury. My client was getting absolutely hammered by the evidence, including some things that my client had not cared to share with me before the trial. When I got him out in the hall during a recess and confronted him with the realities of that, his only suggestion was to tell the jury it wasn't true. A remarkably poor strategy, and the equivelant of what I see here regularly. You can predict how that story ends.

Anecdotal evidence, is not scientific evidence. It is not refutable, falsifiable, take your pick. So please, would you and DWA stop treating eye witness reports like they are hard evidence. They are categorically not. You can use it in a court of law, yes, but not as scientific evidence. As to your other questions? I do spend a lot of time outdoors and am in no way an urbanite. I do not take BF at face value, correct. The claim is extraordinary and the evidence is unimpressive, and the proof non-existent. How could someone take a subject like that at face value is the better question. I wasn't substituting my personal beliefs, I was offering alternate explanations for the tracks. But ultimately left it at who knows. You desire BF to be real, so you are swayed one way. I find BF rather dubious, so I'm not going to jump to that conclusion. And as long as any of the alternatives are reasonably viable, I'm going to lean towards one of those. That is until someone can actually produce the Monkey. Still waiting on that.

The increasing volume of reports, in my opinion, deters from the realistic possibility of BF being real. That many people cannot be seeing something that is real and have it avoid detection for this long. It would have been found or outed via scat, or bones or something by now. And sure people can go on all they want about new insects and salamanders being found all they want. That's a far cry from a new mammal, especially a 600 lb, 8 ft predatory mammal.

Edited February 13, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Anecdotal evidence, is not scientific evidence. It is not refutable, falsifiable, take your pick. So please, would you and DWA stop treating eye witness reports like they are hard evidence. They are categorically not. You can use it in a court of law, yes, but not as scientific evidence. As to your other questions? I do spend a lot of time outdoors and am in no way an urbanite. I do not take BF at face value, correct. The claim is extraordinary and the evidence is unimpressive, and the proof non-existent. How could someone take a subject like that at face value is the better question. I wasn't substituting my personal beliefs, I was offering alternate explanations for the tracks. But ultimately left it at who knows. You desire BF to be real, so you are swayed one way. I find BF rather dubious, so I'm not going to jump to that conclusion. And as long as any of the alternatives are reasonably viable, I'm going to lean towards one of those. That is until someone can actually produce the Monkey. Still waiting on that.

The increasing volume of reports, in my opinion, deters from the realistic possibility of BF being real. That many people cannot be seeing something that is real and have it avoid detection for this long. It would have been found or outed via scat, or bones or something by now. And sure people can go on all they want about new insects and salamanders being found all they want. That's a far cry from a new mammal, especially a 600 lb, 8 ft predatory mammal.

Well, problem is we are seeing some serious talking-past-our-points going on here.

We treat eyewitness reports the way we do because that is the way a sensible person treats them. To just blanket toss them is to call thousands of people you know nothing about guilty of stuff you know nothing about. No one has said anything more times on this forum than I have said: they are not hard evidence. But a rational person, who has thought about this topic, cannot - as you are doing - toss them.

You can use them to fry an innocent man, but not in science, 'cos that's serious. OK. Glad we got our priorities straight.

The claim is nowhere near extraordinary, given the competing claim that would have to be true were it not. This is why I have never seen a scientist who is paying attention bet the competing claim. (No. They show clear evidence they aren't paying attention when they do. They either say things that aren't true or don't matter.) Skeptics get to spout nonsense and demand proof. Not the way science works.

One never takes a scientific topic at face value. One applies judgment. We have. When someone applies judgment to a competing viewpoint I will be the first one all over it, and before the first one to acknowledge it. It just hasn't happened.

You know what no skeptic has ever done? Show a negative scientific take that passes the most basic smell test. You can be the first...!

Oh, and any scientist can tell you this and if he tells you otherwise he's dead wrong:

There is no evidence more testable or falsifiable then anecdotal evidence. It tells you: this happens. That can be disproven on examination, not by proving a negative, but by proving a false positive.

Can't beg off that. To beg off that is to say: OK, uncle. It's time to tell the big dogs of science to hunt. I'll pipe down pending their findings. Do anything else, and you are treating science like religion. And we all know you don't do that.

Do you.

Oh. more than one predatory mammal bigger than postulated. Precedent aplenty, indeed the only way a new world great ape makes any sense.

And look what the evidence says. Howzbout that.

Edited February 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

Dude, what are you even talking about? How many Ketchum's, Dyers does it take?

[Guest DWA]

Dude, what are you even talking about? How many Ketchum's, Dyers does it take?

Oh, I see you've joined us late. Just go back and read. Then read what we say read.

Ketchum? Dyer? Freak shows. I been laughing all the way. This is what those paying attention do with science topics.

[WSA]

DWA: "Shoveling Smoke." Wish I could claim coinage. That is a Greerism (John Michael Greer, a/k/a The Archdruid), one of the great polymaths of our time. I know you catch his blog on occasion. One of his other dismissive descriptions I like a lot is "hand waving."

I think too I've solved something. I think Melba is absolutely correct about the mDNA. I mean, have you ever gotten a close look at Patty's mug? Jeez, I'd be trolling outside the gene pool myself, whot?

[Guest DWA]

I will never rule anything out. Shoot, canids intermate so bad that "coydogs" - where did that word go, anyway? - and red wolf/coyote hybrids and northeastern coyotes with wolf genes and ...well, you get the point. Birds seem to do it at the drop of a hat. What is the Bili ape? Maybe a hybrid. Can't rule it out, and so can't do that for something we don't even know what it is yet.

We talk about native legends maybe describing a real animal. Well, they talk about interbreeding. So. Is that in the "real" or "supernatural qualities of the pocket gopher" category? Don't ask me. Jim McClarin talks about pure-blood sasquatch and hybrids. Um, OK. Not saying yes, not saying no.

Hey, cross-pollinating the lexicon corrals bonus points. You'll see that phrase again, count on it.

Edited February 14, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

^^ I looked briefly ,a month or so ago as a cousin of my wife's used the term one day, and from what I read coydogs are an urban myth, not an actual animal. I'll have to look into more, but that was the gist of it I think. EDIT: Seems they do exist, but are very rare. Not really looking to derail into a discussion of coydogs, it just caught my attention since I didn't think it was clear if they existed or not.

Edited February 14, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

The word got used enough to make the dictionary; but it's been long since I heard it.

Coydogs or no, our once-secure definition of "species" - populations that don't breed except with their own kind - has kinda been, if not stood on its ear, seriously challenged by reality. Who the heck knows? Actually, it's something I don't think there's enough info to comment on, except to say that, well, Native cultures report it; we're not sure the significance of that; and there are these Ketchum "findings," which have smelled of fish to me since the beginning, but sometimes blind pigs find acorns, as the Chinese say.

[dmaker]

^^ Agree. We'll just wait and see, but I predict nothing good will come of this Ketchum debacle. Add to that the current Dyer fiasco and the popularity of BF as an interesting aspect of pop culture might just go the way of the Nessie.

What's your take on "Matilda-Rug"? That coat looks nothing at all like Patty. Not even if you allow for morphology variation found in hybrid species I wouldn't think. Not an expert, or course, it just seems to be quite the dimorphism in my opinion. One has a coat that looks like a mop mated with a shag rug and the other has what looks to be straight, coarse hair.

Edited February 14, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Here's my take: fake fake fake.

This never ceases to amaze (spelled: a m u s e) me. You have the goods, and this is what you show? Given the track record (i.e., 100% correct on first guess), this can have only one purpose: to get the gullible to shell for what's behind the curtain, of which you have been given the First Tantalizing Glimpse!

I believe you've said this: if you got the monkey, show me monkey!

Many sasquatch reports describe an extrmely unkempt, matted, filthy coat; others describe a neatly groomed animal. Well, primates live rather grubby lives, particularly when they hunt for a living. But they also groom.

This though just looked like Dynelâ„¢. With some writhing high school students under it, no doubt.

Hey, I'll be the first one to buy 'em a drink if I'm wrong. But what the hey?

Edited February 14, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

^^ I looked briefly ,a month or so ago as a cousin of my wife's used the term one day, and from what I read coydogs are an urban myth, not an actual animal. I'll have to look into more, but that was the gist of it I think. EDIT: Seems they do exist, but are very rare. Not really looking to derail into a discussion of coydogs, it just caught my attention since I didn't think it was clear if they existed or not.

Seen one. My ex bro-in-law plugged one from a tree stand in, oh...1989? N. Alabama, probably Morgan County, as I recall. Had it mounted. Looked all the world like if you took a german shepherd and tacked a coyote tail and feet on it. Couldn't offer you sequenced DNA to back it up, but one look and you'd have a hard time doubting the possibility.

[Guest]

Hi guys..if you haven't heard>> Derekfoot has been invited to see Dyer's BF..very soon. He just posted this on the Dyer thread.

[Guest DWA]

And now the over-under on whether Dyer actually has one....