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

[WSA]

Leisureclass....it is not that I've read more reports than you, it is that you've not read very many at all. That, plus you've come to the discussion with a position BEFORE doing that. Cure that, and let's talk.

[Guest]

Leisureclass....it is not that I've read more reports than you, it is that you've not read very many at all. That, plus you've come to the discussion with a position BEFORE doing that. Cure that, and let's talk.

Those reports are unreliable. They prove nothing. They are not falsifiable. They are not repeatable. There is no way to verify them. Your response is a non sequitur that you are using to avoid the issue of why there isn't any physical proof.

Edited March 4, 2013 by leisureclass

[dmaker]

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.

No WSA that is not how I approach this entire subject. That is my response to the ridiculous notion that skeptics should be forced to prove the false positive. I was just using that to illustrate how impossible that would be. How can anyone disprove an eye witness report? You cannot. It would involve time travel and HD recording equipment and maybe some highly potent tranquilizers ( for the BF in case he actually was present). So I'm just tired of being told well until you can do the impossible, then the anecdotal reports will continue to be held up as evidence of an unknown animal. Which, of course, they are not. They are possibly evidence of an unknown animal, but that possibility is conditional of BF being real. Until that is proven beyond a doubt, they remain nothing more than pointers to something that could exist. This nuance does not escape you or DWA, you just choose to ignore it and instead charge skeptics with an impossible task.

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

You try to perform a deft doge of the question but it's clumsy and obvious. Saying that anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything does not mean that I deny that anecdotal evidence is important, or as you put it, the beginning of proof of everything. In fact I agree with that. Questions are the beginning of scientific discovery. No doubt about that. You put too much emphasis on the anecdotal evidence and allow it to blind you to the arguments against BF's existence. You like to charge skeptics with preconceived notions that the evil majority have instilled in us. Nasty, status-quo science fairies whispering in our young ears not to believe in Bigfoot. We are just not as enlightened as you, or acquainted with the ( mostly anecdotal) evidence for BF like you are. If only we would listen to you, our eyes would be opened. And you stop there. Anyone with a contrary opinion has not earned their Bigfoot badge sufficiently to contribute to this conversation and you dismiss them out of hand. From, what you sadly perceive as a position of authority because you have read the BFRO database. You preach open mindedness, but are anything but that yourself. You dismiss academic credentials if the person does not share your opinion. You rewrite history when it suits you ( read your previous comments regarding Beringe). You, Sir, are not open minded yourself. You are no better than the skeptics you decry.

Edited March 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

There are no "arguments against bigfoot's existence."

If there are, why can't you prove bigfoot isn't real? Argument implies proof is possible. No, it does.

The anti position on this is intellectually bankrupt. No, it is. It ignores the evidence; keeps saying there is no proof as if a confederacy of dunces means something; ignores the evidence; keeps saying there is no proof; ignores the evidence; keeps saying there is no proof as if a confederacy of dunces means something; ignores the evidence; keeps saying there is no proof; ignores the evidence; keeps saying there is no proof as if...

...get it...?

Meldrum over that crap. Krantz over that krap. Bindernagel over that crap.

Every single time.

I take the folks using their degrees over the folks hiding behind them.

Mr. Labcoat can tell me all the things that influence eyewitnesses to misrepresent stuff, and I will listen ....as long as what he is doing is proving, for every single sasquatch sighting report, that this witness had this specific thing happen, and for that reason did not see a bigfoot but saw this.

Or else Mr. Labcoat is contributing nothing of value. Capisch?

They keep talking about proof. And they don't think they need to do anything but toss crap at a wall.

Keep tossing. We just don't have to respect it. That's all.

I think the richest thing I've ever read on this board - and I've read rich - is somebody telling me I'm closed-minded. Let's compare.

DWA: What is this? Nothing is telling us conclusively what is generating all this evidence; but there are strong leads, being followed up by qualified academics, as to something it might be. I'd like to know. What is it? I await serious investigation and proof.

dmaker: IT IS THIS; IT IS THIS AND WILL ALWAYS BE THIS; I DO NOT NEED TO SULLY MYSELF WITH INFORMATION! IT IS THIS! SCIENTISTS HAVE ALL AGREED TO ALL AGREE AND I AND YOU AND THEY MUST ALL AGREE! IT IS THIS! THIS! THIS!

wow. looking at it that way I'm ashamed of my closed-minded stance. wow.

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Perhaps arguments against BF's existence was a poor choice of words. Does arguments that point out the unlikelihood of such a creature existing sound better? And you keep bringing up the word proof. I am not saying anything about proof, so stop saying that. It's like you have one thought in your head so you repeat it over and over and over again even when the person you're responding to never mentioned it. I'm simply talking about anecdotal evidence, that's all. The value of, the lack of value of it. And the impossibility of proving it to be false. Despite the fact that you love to send skeptics off on this fantasy errand that could never be done and think our failure to do so makes you look smart.

[Guest DWA]

You aren't saying anything about proof? THERE'S NO PROOF is your most consistent - and only I might add - point!

(There are no "arguments that point out the unlikelihood of such a creature existing." Same diff, just as wrong.)

You can prove anecdotal evidence to be true. Only you don't want to. Someday Western science will know why.

Look smart? Oh I AM smart, bro. I haven't been fighting for 173 - count 'em! - pages for the side with a silly thesis and no evidence! (Less fun, too. By so very very much that, well, it would take actual good science to get me to adopt it. Fortunately no chance of that happening. Whew.)

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

There are plenty of arguments that point out the unlikelihood of a creature like BF existing. Just because you don't agree with them, does not make them go away. Some of them are even by credentialed folks. But, hey, you'll just say they are not doing their job proper or something. The only credentials you accept are from those academics that you agree with and repeat ad naseum. The ONLY credential you care about exists solely in your head. Agree with me, or you're wrong. It's that simple. That's open minded alright.

Edited March 5, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

You can prove anecdotal evidence to be true.

Fine, prove to me that a majority of witnesses actually saw a Bigfoot. Do so using evidence that is verifiable, and doesn't require assumptions as to their reliability.

[Guest DWA]

There are plenty of arguments that point out the unlikelihood of a creature like BF existing. Just because you don't agree with them, does not make them go away. Some of them are even by credentialed folks. But, hey, you'll just say they are not doing their job proper or something. The only credentials you accept are from those academics that you agree with and repeat ad naseum. The ONLY credential you care about exists solely in your head. Agree with me, or you're wrong. It's that simple. That's open minded alright.

[DWA, pssst! Just agree with the guy.]

[fineoksureuhhuh]

Um, [clears throat] THERE ARE MANY 'ARGUMENTS' FOR THE UNLIKELIHOOD OF SASQUATCH.

They are just all roundly contradicted by evidence.

[You can't stop that, DWA, can you!?!!?!?]

[Nope. Incorrigible.]

The only credentials you accept are from those academics that you agree with and repeat ad naseum. The ONLY credential you care about exists solely in your head. Agree with me, or you're wrong. It's that simple. That's open minded alright.

[sTOP IT, MAN! YOU ARE TORTURING HIM!]

Fine, prove to me that a majority of witnesses actually saw a Bigfoot. Do so using evidence that is verifiable, and doesn't require assumptions as to their reliability.

Whoa. Quoth The Man I Have To Convince.

Um, Jeff Meldrum's on it. I'll let you know. You won't sound any smarter then though, I just have to warn you.

Guys. Yoga breathing. Yo-ga-breath-ing. There we go.

This animal might be real. Allow that into your reality. Reality will go much easier on you that way.

[THAT'S IT, DWA. One more crack and I...]

[You leave, you leave, sure, sure. Just leave me the church keys. Prosit.]

Edited March 5, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I allow for the possibility that Bigfoot is real. I just don't think it's very probable. This isn't about that. I'm waiting for one to walk in front of me, or for someone to show the Monkey to the world. As you say, Meldrum is on it. Uhm, how long has he, and countless amateurs, been "on it"? I'd love to see some results from ANYONE in this field. All there ever is, is talk. Talk, talk, talk, talk, some grainy photos, more talk, and talk, and talk, some more blobsquatches, etc. All the folks you mention constantly, including your pride and joy the TBRC, have yet to produce anything tangible. How long do these folks have to be on it before someone should hope to see something interesting?

[Guest DWA]

Um, TBRC is seeing plenty interesting. So's Meldrum; he has a field guide coming out next month. Getting one? Might want to. I mean, you know, they get to spend like ten days on this a year, shoot, we shoulda had proof long ago, eh?

This is your prob, guys. You need proof tomorrow.

But some of us, the evidence has already told all we need to know. We're good. No rush. You oughtta try this life.

[Guest DWA]

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?

I like to reiterate real important lessons in this discussion. This should be in the course syllabus. Thanks WSA.

[Drew]

A field guide? To Bigfoot? really?

Is it going to show examples of actual footprints? Which ones is he going to provide as examples? Hopefully not the Patterson footprints.

Is it going to have examples of other Bigfoot traits? Glowing eyes? Which color?

Will it describe which UFO's drop off and pick up the Bigfoots? Are they the saucer kind? or the ones shaped like cigars?

Which color fur will be described? White, Grey, Brown, Red, Black?

Will it say they exist in every state on the continent? or will it limit it's range to the PNW?

Will it divide them into different subspecies?

Will it cover Chinese Bigfoots and Russian Bigfoots?

Will it mention why Yeti footprints look different than Bigfoot prints?

What do you think the size range will be? 8-11 feet? 6-14' ? Imagine a field guide showing a 14' 900 pound creature that no one can get an image of.

Do you think he will advise against using trailcams? Because you know, Bigfoot can detect them.

Will it give examples of the 'good' sightings?

What will it say about the bad sightings? Will it give examples of how to detect a real Bigfoot howl from a fox or coyote call? Will it tell you how to avoid other Bigfoot hunters in the field? So you are not answering each other's wood knocks?

Will it give examples of Stick structures? Because he would have a good source in the Boy Scout Handbook, we used to build all those Teepees and lean-tos in the woods when we were in Boy Scouts, will he tell us how to differentiate between a Boy Scout structure and a Bigfoot structure?

[Guest DWA]

Sounds like we're covered. Cleared for takeoff! Hillbillies will be shown for comparison.

[dmaker]

Really, a field guide to an as yet not discovered animal? Sniff..sniff. I smell cash grab on the part of the good Dr.Meldrum. Weird how this field guide coincides with the popularity of Finding Bigfoot and Bigfoot in general.