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

[dmaker]

I am done with arguing about anecdotal evidence in this thread. It is ridiculous to think that it can be proven false. I can't prove to someone that they didn't see what they think they saw. It's a convenient little smoke bomb that folks like DWA/WSA like to throw your way. Forget about it. Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove anything, therefore it cannot be used to disprove anything either. So let's leave all of that crap behind and just talk about physical evidence. Now how often has that been proven false? Quite a few so far.

[Guest DWA]

The "convenient little smoke bomb" that deniers and the Vast Knowledgeable Consensus like to throw your way is that they're way better than all those people who are out there seeing something they don't.

This is just silly: "Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove anything."

Anecdotal evidence is the beginning of the proof of everything. Who disputes that, is wrong.

[but because he is beginning to think nobody in this class has their thinking caps on]:

There's a pencil on my desk. Yellow, on the keyboard, can't miss it. Bring it to me, couldja?

[she does]

end of demo

Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

LeisureClass.....You've read SEVERAL??!!

Read several HUNDRED, or the several THOUSAND available and then you'll be in a position to be taken seriously. If you don't, well, then you won't.

[Guest]

LeisureClass.....You've read SEVERAL??!!

Read several HUNDRED, or the several THOUSAND available and then you'll be in a position to be taken seriously. If you don't, well, then you won't.

Would you care to actually address any of my arguments, or should I assume that you have nothing but "Nya-nya-nya-nya, I've read more reports than you?"

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass

[WSA]

dmaker, you said: "I can't prove to someone that they didn't see what they think they saw "

Just in my own opinion, that is a pretty astounding statement, but it gives me tremendous insight into your approach to this whole subject. Really? Is that your entire goal? If so, no wonder the frustration you report.

Here's just a suggestion for greater satisfaction: Go with that.

[Guest DWA]

@leisureclass:

What WSA is saying is that you are under-informed, and boy haven't we seen a lot of that.

Opinions unbacked by read-up don't count for much. Remember, we're educating you. But you need to do a lot of the educating yourself.

We already know from what you are saying that you don't know too much about this. I mean, just a fact there. Your points aren't relevant. We know.

Know how?

Nya-nya-nya-nya, we've read more reports than you. More other stuff too.

[WSA]

Leisureclass....you're just stating the obvious to anyone who has read as many reports as I have. Some will have more indicators of probability than others. Not all readers are going to agree on a report v. report analysis. My view of those reports you cited doesn't much matter. What matters is that you (or anyone else), who wants to be taken as a serious student of the evidence must put in the work. No shortcuts here. If you are not willing to invest that time, and exercise your critical reading skills in doing it, why would your opinion matter?

[Guest DWA]

I've read several BFRO reports. They are hardly what I would consider a reliable source. Among other things, their field "investigators" seem to lack training in conducting interviews and have a noticeable bias towards belief. For instance, this report has a woman in Kansas hitting a BF with her car. She says she was going 35-40 and it ran in front of her. She also says it was "definitely larger" than her husband, who is 6' and 350 pounds. She didn't have time to break. The only damage to her car was a broken bumper. BF apparently left under his own power, no blood, no hair, no nothing left on the car.

I don't know if you've ever seen what happens when a deer hits a car going that fast, but it does a lot more than just break the bumper. If we believe her, this was a lot bigger than the average deer. So, why wasn't her car totaled? Why wasn't there any blood or hair?

OK, this response is gonna be a combination of nya-nya-nya and just plain more life experience.

I have whacked, and I do mean whacked, A SQUIRREL! with my car - at 55 - and watched it RACE off the road and DART up a tree.

I am no physics major. But the particulars of the report, as given, explain everything. I did take enough physics to know that. Try it sometime. Or now you're gonna tell me you were there. Didn't think so.

The fact that they give credence to a Bigfoot sighting in Antrim Park (a small park that is bordered by an apartment complex, a busy highway, a high school, and a residential neighborhood) says a lot. Not only is Antrim Park too small for a Bigfoot to go unnoticed by more than one person, but it's a new park - until the 1970s, it was a rock quarry. In other words, a BF would have had to wander through suburbs and either cross a major highway or go through an apartment complex to get there.

That doesn't even get into the issue of why, given Ohio's history, Ohio has so many reports compared to surrounding states; the timber industry virtually deforested Ohio by the early 20th century. It didn't make a comeback until the 1970s. So where'd all these BF in Ohio come from, and why did no one see them passing through on the way?

That's a stack of assumptions there, all pointing to an assumption that bigfoot isn't real. Which is no better intellectually than the assumption that it is. By the very arguments you make there should be no black bear in the east. And there are, how many, now? And yes, when somebody says they saw one, everyone automatically believes him even if he's lying. See how this works? Of course now you're gonna tell me how you were there. Oh, you aren't.

Eyewitness testimony is overrated and unreliable. We know that it's one of the least reliable forms of evidence out there, no matter how confident the witness may be. Witnesses' memories are influenced by, among other things, the way the questions are asked and what they've heard, seen, or read in the meantime. That's even more true when dealing with people of another race. Why should we think that they suddenly become more accurate when dealing with another species? Especially when those witnesses are interviewed by people who assume BF exists?

Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable thing mankind has ever encountered. It has given us, among other things, um, er, everything we know. Not only that, but it gets you pretty much flawlessly through every single day of your life; me too; and pretty much the whole seven billion others. Do people concoct things? Yes they do. But it is the unwisest thing anyone has ever done to presume that's what's happening with no evidence that's the case. Eyewitness testimony is not proof. But you discount it at your peril. Like, for example, here. I know, can already tell that, a lot more about animals than you. And that OH sighting is totally plausible.

I'm not suggesting that they're lying. I am suggesting that a lot of them are mistaken or have faulty recollections of what they saw.

And your evidence for that is what? No. Really? Then why should I believe you again?

[Guest]

Leisureclass....you're just stating the obvious to anyone who has read as many reports as I have. Some will have more indicators of probability than others. Not all readers are going to agree on a report v. report analysis. My view of those reports you cited doesn't much matter. What matters is that you (or anyone else), who wants to be taken as a serious student of the evidence must put in the work. No shortcuts here. If you are not willing to invest that time, and exercise your critical reading skills in doing it, why would your opinion matter?

Once again, you fail to address my larger points, namely that eyewitness testimony is unreliable even when dealing with other people - and it gets worse when the witness is speaking about people who look different. We also know that people tend to tailor their stories to the listener, and that people's memories are heavily influenced by what people say. That's been demonstrated over and over and over, as discussed at length in the various links I provided.

What reason is there to think that eyewitness testimony is reliable when dealing with another species?

@leisureclass:

What WSA is saying is that you are under-informed, and boy haven't we seen a lot of that.

Opinions unbacked by read-up don't count for much. Remember, we're educating you. But you need to do a lot of the educating yourself.

We already know from what you are saying that you don't know too much about this. I mean, just a fact there. Your points aren't relevant. We know.

Know how?

Nya-nya-nya-nya, we've read more reports than you. More other stuff too.

Read-up on what? Amateur reports taken by biased "researchers" who lack training in investigations or witness interviews and, in several cases, accept without question accounts that conflict with the physical evidence?

If this is the state of BF research, it's no wonder that scientists aren't flocking to the field.

[Guest DWA]

Um, scientists are in it, dude, and the ones that are are using those degrees. Them over you. Every time.

Once again, you fail to address my larger points, namely that eyewitness testimony is unreliable even when dealing with other people - and it gets worse when the witness is speaking about people who look different. We also know that people tend to tailor their stories to the listener, and that people's memories are heavily influenced by what people say. That's been demonstrated over and over and over, as discussed at length in the various links I provided.

What reason is there to think that eyewitness testimony is reliable when dealing with another species?

I know you're going to tell me what that last sentence means. But do you think we are confirming other species by seeing them, or by feeling for them with our feet?

Your "larger points" are small points, smokescreens that show you haven't read up. Sure people lie when they are motivated to lie, a motivation that is significantly lacking in this case. Assess what reason you could possibly have for telling anyone you saw a bigfoot tomorrow and we've wrapped that one up.

[Guest]

OK, this response is gonna be a combination of nya-nya-nya and just plain more life experience.

I have whacked, and I do mean whacked, A SQUIRREL! with my car - at 55 - and watched it RACE off the road and DART up a tree.

I am no physics major. But the particulars of the report, as given, explain everything. I did take enough physics to know that. Try it sometime. Or now you're gonna tell me you were there. Didn't think so.

The particulars of the report are that she was on her phone while driving at 35-40 mph, the thing ran in front of her, she hit it with her front left side of her car, and the only damage is a cracked bumper. Yep, that explains everything. As for your life experience, unless you backed up and finished the job on that little vermin, the only thing I have to say to you is "WHY NOT?"

That's a stack of assumptions there, all pointing to an assumption that bigfoot isn't real. Which is no better intellectually than the assumption that it is. By the very arguments you make there should be no black bear in the east. And there are, how many, now? And yes, when somebody says they saw one, everyone automatically believes him even if he's lying. See how this works? Of course now you're gonna tell me how you were there. Oh, you aren't.

This entire paragraph is irrelevant.

Eyewitness testimony is the most reliable thing mankind has ever encountered. It has given us, among other things, um, er, everything we know. Not only that, but it gets you pretty much flawlessly through every single day of your life; me too; and pretty much the whole seven billion others. Do people concoct things? Yes they do. But it is the unwisest thing anyone has ever done to presume that's what's happening with no evidence that's the case. Eyewitness testimony is not proof. But you discount it at your peril. Like, for example, here. I know, can already tell that, a lot more about animals than you. And that OH sighting is totally plausible.

I'm going to take two Stanford professors, the UTEP Interviewing research lab, and the UND psych professor over your unsupported, uninformed, blanket statement about eyewitness reliability any day. As for the animals thing, it's irrelevant.

You want life experience? I live in central Ohio, about 4-5 miles from Antrim Lake. I've been to Antrim Lake. More than once. It's a tiny park in an urban/suburban environment, with no way for a BF to get in or out without being noticed. It's been that way since well before Antrim became a park. If there was a BF there, it would've been captured long ago, or spotted by more than one person. How many times did you visit in order to offer such a strong opinion?

Um, scientists are in it, dude, and the ones that are are using those degrees. Them over you. Every time.

I know you're going to tell me what that last sentence means. But do you think we are confirming other species by seeing them, or by feeling for them with our feet?

Your "larger points" are small points, smokescreens that show you haven't read up. Sure people lie when they are motivated to lie, a motivation that is significantly lacking in this case. Assess what reason you could possibly have for telling anyone you saw a bigfoot tomorrow and we've wrapped that one up.

There are lots of reasons why people make bad witnesses besides outright deception, as explained by the two Stanford profs, UTEP research lab, and forensic psych prof at UND in the links I provided.

As for why people might think they saw a BF, besides outright deception? Pop culture and its suggestion that BFs exist and are all over the place, a need for attention, suggestion by friends or family, they may already think BF exists and this confirms it.

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass

[WSA]

Leisureclass....my friend, I just won't waste my time with somebody who purports to dismiss evidence before reading it. Would you? Go read. Then come back and we'll chat as long as you possibly want. Promise.

[Guest DWA]

@leisureclass:

More assumptions, backed by not much knowledge about animals.

And what have all those perfessers up there told us about the sasquatch testimony? Have they systematically debunked large numbers of eyewitness reports? No they have not. The eyewitnesses over them, until someone explains - tossing crap at a wall is not 'explaining' - what they saw.

You dismissed as irrelevant the most relevant paragraph up there - while we're on knowledge about animals.

Assumptions don't go far in a scientific discussion, sorry.

Leisureclass....my friend, I just won't waste my time with somebody who purports to dismiss evidence before reading it. Would you? Go read. Then come back and we'll chat as long as you possibly want. Promise.

What he said.

The funniest thing about you deniers is that you are absolutely SUUUUUUUUURE. When this critter is confirmed - and oh you may live to see it - you will be amusing to hear from. If we ever do.

Come on. I have been hearing this low-grade denialist stuff time out of mind. When is a skeptic gonna come on here that, you know, has an opinion that seems backed up by something serious?

Instead there's all this...all this...."I KNOW MORE DEN JEFF BRELBRUM!!! [swig] I KNOW MORE THAN JOHN PUMPERNAGLE!!!! [swig] I KNOW MORE THAN JOHN MYDURZOOSKKIE! [swig] ...I KNOW MORE THAN...THAN...[swog]"

It's just downright undignified. I gotta start hangin' at better bars, that's it.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

@leisureclass:

More assumptions, backed by not much knowledge about animals.

And what have all those perfessers up there told us about the sasquatch testimony? Have they systematically debunked large numbers of eyewitness reports? No they have not. The eyewitnesses over them, until someone explains - tossing crap at a wall is not 'explaining' - what they saw.

They've demonstrated that eyewitnesses should not be considered reliable, absent corroborating evidence. In this case, where's the corroborating evidence? Where's the DNA? Where's the body? Where's the hair sample confirmed to have come from a BF?

You dismissed as irrelevant the most relevant paragraph up there - while we're on knowledge about animals.

Assumptions don't go far in a scientific discussion, sorry.

Irony, thou art spelled D-W-A.

The funniest thing about you deniers is that you are absolutely SUUUUUUUUURE. When this critter is confirmed - and oh you may live to see it - you will be amusing to hear from. If we ever do.

Come on. I have been hearing this low-grade denialist stuff time out of mind. When is a skeptic gonna come on here that, you know, has an opinion that seems backed up by something serious?

Funny you'd call me a denier. I've said in other threads that they may exist in the Arctic/subarctic part of the continent. Not sure how that makes me a denier.

Leisureclass....my friend, I just won't waste my time with somebody who purports to dismiss evidence before reading it. Would you? Go read. Then come back and we'll chat as long as you possibly want. Promise.

And we're still on the "Nya-nya-nya-nya, I've read more reports than you. OK, cool.

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest DWA]

It's OK, son. I've heard that when you lower the blinds the bigfoot goes away.

How many people who insist on not doing their homework do you insist on fighting with? WSA doesn't like it neither....oh, stop acting so ruffled. We're just talking about this one topic on which there are guys we are simply taking over you. That's it.

Edited March 4, 2013 by DWA