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

[Guest Stan Norton]

Well loons are entertaining. Reality TV pretty much cemented that fact for the world.

But, yes I do concede that the assumptions are based on some evidence. Pretty shaky evidence. All of it conditional or anecdotal. I think people leap to conclusions far too often with this subject. In fact look at Meldrum et al, leaping to conclusions in the absence of a specimen.

Hang on a minute! Isn't all evidence conditional?? That's the point of it in the first place. Evidence is presented to back up a theory, then is tested by counter evidence. Ergo, all evidence is conditional.

Anecdotal? No. Much of it (witness sightings - the very definition of anecdotal) is, but a print? That's not anecdotal - there it is, right there. Solid evidence in front of you. You are perfectly entitled to provide counter evidence as to how it got there but you cannot state that it is anecdotal. If someone like Professor Meldrum (now what was his specialism again?....) says he thinks it is kosher then I will give the man some of my time and carefully absorb what he says. To date, I have seen no detailed counter evidence addressing these prints: if not a real animal, then what?

[dmaker]

Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, all the physical evidence is conditional until Bigfoot is proven to exist. A track remains a suspected track of an unknown animal, awaiting confirmation. Therefore, conditional upon that confirmation.

That's all I wanted to say. I am no longer going to post in this thread for awhile. I'm tired of the same old conversation over and over again.

Enjoy.

[Guest DWA]

We'd love to vary up the convo. But somebody needs to do some reading and thinking first.

Sigh. No-proof. One more time. Who disagreed?

[WSA]

dmaker....sorry to see you go, but you're really not saying anything different than all of us so-called proponents are saying. Where you get off-track though is trying to parse a disctinction between a track made by a "theoretical" animal and a "confirmed" animal. Really? Can a theoretical/conditional animal leave a track? Wouldn't you have to concede the foot of this theoretical/conditional animal looks a lot like ....I dunno....the track the foot made (only, you know, a negative impression of that foot)? C'mon man, you're going to make youre head explode if you keep up this kind of nonsense! That is exactly the kind of pseudo-intellectual fallderall that gets between what the world shows you to be true or probable and your acceptance of that evidence. Break on through my friend!

[Guest Stan Norton]

Regardless of what you or anyone else thinks, all the physical evidence is conditional until Bigfoot is proven to exist. A track remains a suspected track of an unknown animal, awaiting confirmation. Therefore, conditional upon that confirmation.

That's all I wanted to say. I am no longer going to post in this thread for awhile. I'm tired of the same old conversation over and over again.

Enjoy.

But that's what I said. I agree with you, and myself.

[WSA]

I've been ruminating on the willful denial of not only the probability of a Sasquatch existing, but also the no-holds barred reaction to even the possibility of such. I'm not addressing my thoughts to anyone in particular, just airing them in an attempt to promote a better understanding of this position.

In my discussions with BF theory opponents, one characteristic comes to the fore, always. I generalize, but the overwhelming personality trait I encounter is the one of Supreme Rationalist. Believe me, as a practicing lawyer for almost thirty years, I know the type. Hell, I probably am one on some subjects, so it takes one to know one. One requirement of the SR is the need to control circumstances and outcomes. The SR is not comfortable with uncertainty, or mystery. The SR hugs tight to the status quo when paradigm shifting theories hove into view.

I recall those days when I was a young lawyer who would show up for trial with a 10 page Motion to serve on my opponent. It essentially would object to any possible evidence that might hurt my well rationalized view of the evidence, or could possibly be against my client's interest. These Motions were, appropriately and summarily, overruled. I still see young wannabe trial lawyers approach trial evidence in this way. What the seasoned trial lawyer comes to know is that a trial is essentially chaos with a pastiche of the illusion of control by the participants. Isn't life and the universe the same? You either learn to surf that chaos, or expend futile energy to try to maintain control at all costs. It will kill you young if you make that as a habit. Well, at least your professional life will not be long, if not your actual life.

What else do I see? (Gross Generalization alert again) Most BF opponents do not spend much time in natural habitats, vulnerable to what might be lurking there. Oh, you'll see some who allow they like to spend "time outdoors, etc." In contemplating the natural order of things and unknown possibilities though, nothing substitutes for, well, spending time directly observing the natural order of things while thinking about unknown possibilities. I'm talking about the "deep" understanding that only comes from immersing yourself in an extremely wild situation. An extended solo backcountry trip somewhere on the N.A. continent? Ever slept on the ground, alone, miles from another human? Ever gone even ONE day without hearing another human voice? Ever spent large amounts of time in an environment where something can possibly maim and kill you and nobody would ever even know where to look for your body? If you haven't done something like that at least once, I don't have any assurances you will be open to appreciating what is at the root of a greater understanding. It is no coincidence that many BF proponents are hikers, backpackers, wilderness dwellers and hunters, and why there are very few opponents who are. (Dr. Jeff Meldrum is typical of people who opened up to the possibility while "out there." There are many, many others.) Think about that if you are disinclined to consider the very idea of BF. Let your Supremely Rational self get some humility and defer to those who have spent that time there. Get some of that for yourself, it will do you a world of good, and not just on this subject.

Lastly, sorry, we have to talk about fear. There is a truth in this world and it is: Show me your anger and I'll tell you your fear. I've been really mystified at times by the indignation some people exhibit when asked to consider this possibility. It is sometimes way beyond what I would have thought...almost personal. Srike the "almost." And on further contemplation, it is not mysterious at all. It is very emotionally upsetting to consider this possibility, is it not? It should be, if it isn't. To admit to this chance is to challenge every fundamental assumption we hold about our "humaness", and it touches on what a lot of us consider to be settled theological and evolutionary facts. Whoa. Hell, now I’m scaring myself… J

Edited March 6, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Well spotfreakin on.

The original post on this thread, by now pretty much blown away, shows much evidence of extreme personal investment. Not to mention extreme focus on sideshows that only obfuscate and confuse. Not speaking for WSA now. But the only thing I am invested in, and I suspect him too, is the bottom of this. Marlboro ain't gettin' there from his perch, and dmaker needs decaf stat! Our minds are just open.

And open minds and nothing else move science forward.

Edited March 7, 2013 by DWA

[Martin]

I've been ruminating on the willful denial of not only the probability of a Sasquatch existing, but also the no-holds barred reaction to even the possibility of such. ........

Well thought out and heartfelt post +1 from me.

However you could have said "I've been ruminating on the willful denial of not only the UNLIKELY probability of a Sasquatch existing, but also the no-holds barred reaction to even the possibility of such.....etc etc.

As far as outdoorsmen go, people who fit into your description, I think many if not most would say that there is no squatch.

I find myself leaning on the fence but the bigfoot celebrities, and their apologists, make it harder and harder.

I hope someone someone will harvest a body in my lifetime.

M

[Guest DWA]

Well this is what i mean by 'obfuscate and confuse.'

Almost all the bandwidth in this field is hogged by the 'celebrities,' most of whose acquaintance with evidence is sketchy at best. They have their own 'unique' takes and their own name to make, and fingerprint flights of fancy. How do WSA and I know this? We pay attention to the scientists applying their science to the evidence.

Never blame the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it, as I like to say.

Edited March 10, 2013 by DWA
Remove quote directly above

[Drew]

I wonder if anyone has ever appealed their conviction based on the fact that their Defense Lawyer thinks Bigfoot exists.

You should show all of your clients what you wrote in post 3501.

You paint Bigfoot skeptics as "Supreme Rationalists", I would paint them as normal rationalists. It is the completely normal position to require evidence before believing something as silly as a 9-12 foot tall hairy biped, weighting over 600 pounds is traipsing through sem-rural neighborhoods, and trailer parks, over an incredible chunk of North America. It is absolutely the normal rationalist position to doubt this, until substantial, if not extraordinary evidence is provided to support such a claim.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Drew

[WSA]

Drew....HA! Love that, but no. I don't practice criminal law. My typical client believes in much, much more than that. let me assure you. I've represented a good number of rural dwelling/outdoor loving people in my career, and I've learned to trust what they tell me, no matter how much it strains my credulity initially. You should try it!

Touched a nerve there, did I? Hmm..... Well, sorry for that.

Edited March 7, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

I wonder if anyone has ever appealed their conviction based on the fact that their Defense Lawyer thinks Bigfoot exists.

You should show all of your clients what you wrote in post 3501.

You paint Bigfoot skeptics as "Supreme Rationalists", I would paint them as normal rationalists. It is the completely normal position to require evidence before believing something as silly as a 9-12 foot tall hairy biped, weighting over 600 pounds is traipsing through sem-rural neighborhoods, and trailer parks, over an incredible chunk of North America. It is absolutely the normal rationalist position to doubt this, until substantial, if not extraordinary evidence is provided to support such a claim.

When the substantial evidence exists; scientists vouch for it; the scientists who don't can be demonstrated by non-scientists to be not paying any attention; and the rationalists refuse to pay attention to that, going on for ....er, 176 pages now empirically demonstrating their imperviousness to information (getting the mean heights and weights wrong among other things), then 'normal' is not what they're being, unless one considers denial a normal part of the human condition.

Oh, and I should add: if what we are saying is that post 3501 is proof positive that WSA is a whacko who should not be your defense attorney: This is why I say a population of 56 million, 15-foot tall, two-ton sasquatch could live entirely in US suburbs and go totally unconfirmed. If the response to seeing one is "you didn't see that," shoot, we could have blue whales flying down our streets daily and no one would officially know it.

Edited March 7, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

No nerve struck, I just don't understand how you think asking for evidence is the tactic of a SUPREME RATIONALIST. It is the tactic of a normal, reasonable person.

The mean heights and weights of your Personally selected sighting reports.

Of course, once we determine how to select a proper report, then we can get into normal mean weights and heights.

Until then, I will use my mean heights and weights, selected from the sightings that I deem worthy. I left out the 14 footers because, even you have to admit that that is completely silly.

[Guest DWA]

Nope, yours are wrong and mine are right. How do I know?

I don't select. I read 'em all, draw that mental bell curve, and boom! you're wrong.

This is what acquaintance with evidence will do. There are sasquatch in the size range you mention, but one would have to cherry-pick big time to think they are the norm.

On what basis are you selecting? Wait, I know: the "whatever will make this least believable" basis.

Oh, count on it.

Edited March 10, 2013 by DWA
To remove quote as it is directly above the reply.

[WSA]

Drew....allow me to give you the benefit of somebody who deals with the vagaries of eyewitness testimony on a daily basis. One truth about an eyewitness is that you always, always get some good, and some bad. A decision by a lawyer to call a witness to testify in front of a jury always weighs one against the other. The American system of jurisprudence permits a jury to weigh the testimony of the witness as a whole, as it should. No difference here.

One more thing. A lawyer who puts a witness on the stand without knowing what that witness is likely to say is playing Russian Roulette with his client's interests. That lawyer should have prior testimony in the form of a deposition to review, or at a minimum, a recorded statement. Significant variations in the two versions permit impeachment by the examining lawyer. Impeachment is not permitted on details deemed by the judge to be "collateral" to the issues being tried. If you are advocating for or against the existence of this animal (and we are) I would consider the point you raise to be collateral to that issue. In other words, you are just quibbling over the details, not undermining the entire proposition. Our, to use an appropriate colloquialism: Asking us to chuck the kid into the yard with the water emptied from the wash tub.