Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

No DWA, you completely missed the hypothetical. I suspect on purpose. But it's early and I'm still easing into my day with a cup of coffee, so I'll sacrifice a few moments and try again.

If mainstream science decided to engage this topic with more resources than even you had imagined, how long will it take before you start to think maybe there is no Bigfoot? Or maybe, just maybe these people are not seeing a 7 ft ape? I am not talking people channeling their inner biologist or big game hunter fantasies. I am talking about armies of Phds loaded up with the latest high tech hairy primate finding gear, and out in those woods, full-time, just looking for Bigfoot. What is a rough estimate ( not a checkered flag event), but simply at what point do you think that even someone with your steadfast position that an undiscovered ape is causing the sightings, at what point does someone like you even start to think, hmmm, well it's been X amount of time, maybe these people are not actually seeing a beast? And if you can get that far, and I suspect that even in the hypothetical that you cannot, but if you do indulge that far, then what would you specifically posit as a possible source of all the evidence?

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

No, actually, you missed my point.

I wasn't referring to people who are looking for the big guy. I was referring to people who have seen it, and the odds that their "weird random hallucinations, lies and misidentifications" are coming up with a neat ecological picture of a large temperate-zone omnivorous primate (while other people are busily, and randomly and unrelatedly, hoaxing footprints that bolster that picture) being so **** near zero that it would require a lunatic (at least a lunatic who is actually acquainted with the evidence) to bet them.

The ape is the smart bet. There is no other alternative worth considering until the evidence screaming APE APE APE is properly followed up.

(You yourself have said, in so many words, that one can't even begin to prove any other alternative. So how can one even consider it...? You're not proposing that we just accept as real something we can't prove, are you...? You don't seem to like that course of action.)

And promise: I won't have to worry about how long this will take. Once the search is properly engaged, it won't take long.

Promise.

Now. Do yourself a favor, and do some thinking and some reading about field biology. 'Cause it has happened for a grand total of about three months in the entire history of the alleged search for the sasquatch.

Which can start any day. [drums fingers]

Edited April 4, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I didn't miss your point, it just did not address my hypothetical at all. If the evidence screaming APE APE APE is properly followed up does not produce one single APE, what then? That's the question. The question, it seems, you refuse to even entertain. That seems to me a position without objectivity. You are convinced of a conclusion and will not waver, even in the hypothetical. You cannot conceive a world where the evidence does not lead to Bigfoot. That sounds just like the opposite side of the coin from the people you decry on a daily basis.

[Guest DWA]

If it is properly followed up, it is going to.

I will never understand how people think we need to just accept that thousands of people are wrong about something with absolutely no need to lift Finger One to prove the proposition. The odds that they are wrong are as I say up there effectively zero in the logical world that at least I have been inhabiting.

When these thousands provide a guidebook description - vouched for by the only scientists who are saying anything about this that makes sense - I'm going with them over a few random folk who say:

I'm right I can't prove it they are all wrong listen to me.

And as to this:

"You cannot conceive a world where the evidence does not lead to Bigfoot."

Sure I can! Just that with this pile of evidence, I cannot accept that anyone who can't conceive of a world where the evidence does is paying proper attention to reality.

[dmaker]

So then you refuse to accept the possibility that this amount of evidence does not, in fact, lead to a Bigfoot? You cannot possibly be wrong about this? That's basically what I am reading here.

You will concede that a world could exist without a Bigfoot, but it's not THIS one. So other than entertaining alternate realities, you have reached a conclusion and refuse to even muse about the possibility of being wrong.

I don't see a lot of objectivity in that still. You are not waiting for proof, you have already reached a conclusion. So why bother going on about evidence this, and search that, when you already are convinced of the result? You have less objectivity than the people you "came here to educate". At least I concede that there is a chance that Bigfoot exists, albeit remote in my opinion. But you won't even go that far. Where is the objectivity in your position Sir?

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Read wrong all you want. I mean, you're the one who is saying THIS IS WHAT IT IS, AND I CAN'T PROVE IT, SO....UM, THIS IS WHAT IT IS!

Taking science over the random potshot, every time. Just telling you the way a man bets his money. Might want to get yours down. I haven't reached the conclusion, YOU have, and you say so, in so many words, many times.

But you haven't read up enough on the topic to reach one.

Conclusion? Just a smart man, bettin' his money.

[Guest DWA]

(This may be the only scientific topic in which the possibilities for which there is zero evidence are the ones that must be true.)

[WSA]

Here's one of the biggest issues the evidence is subject to interpretation that in the majority of cases is ignorant at best and delusional at worst.

Here's a great example from this weekend!

Is it bigfoot blocking another trail or the result of some recent weather?

I dunno, but at this point in my trail maintenance career I've cut and removed (rough estimate) a squillion blow-downs. I never knew who to blame until now. Extermination is clearly the only way to end this scourge!

But yeah, I would consider tree evidence, unless supported by direct observation/audio confirmation, to be pretty speculative, unlike the numerous other behaviors we've seen and heard.

But on the other hand, I've put in thousands of hours of trail walking/cutting/maintaining, and I don't think I'm puffing myself up too much in saying I do consider myself somewhat of an expert on that subject. If another person with that experience came to me and said what they observed was not a typical blowdown, for whatever reasons they could articulate, I would be a fool not to seriously consider what they were telling me and to not put it on the stack of evidence to be investigated if I could not reasonably explain why it shouldn't be.

Edited April 4, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

Right, so again you won't properly address the hypothetical. So how can you properly evaluate any evidence that is contrary to your conclusion? You will not even admit to the possibility that the evidence is not caused by Bigfoot. So you cannot evaluate any competing hypothesis objectively. No wonder you just dismiss them out of hand. For example, I cannot perform something that is impossible. But I can point to numerous studies that show that witnesses can be mistaken almost with uncanny predictive accuracy when describing what they see. Similar reports will show the fallibility of human memory and recall. All of those could be used to support the claim that eye witnesses are mistaken. But you will, and have each and every time, dismiss them out of hand. Which of course you would do because the only theory or evidence you will accept are those that support your unwavering position. The evidence points to Bigfoot and nothing else is possible. So why bother even presenting or positing anything to you? You have already reached your conclusion and you refuse to budge even one hypothetical inch.

(This may be the only scientific topic in which the possibilities for which there is zero evidence are the ones that must be true.)

Zero evidence? Really? Part of the competing hypothesis is that some of the evidence is hoaxed. So, uhm, we have zero evidence of hoaxes do we? Care to adjust your statement?

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[kbhunter]

WSA and all, take a look at my video here from last Saturday. It is dicussing tree bows and I am making videos to discuss other anomalies I find during my outings.

I will set the stage and please pardon my Southern accent in the video, LOL.

This tree bow appeared overnight during a campout and there was another pretty famous researcher with me at the time. We had experienced some whoops, some footfalls and tree knocking the night this happened. It is literally less than 100 yards from our camp. The tree was fine the day before, no storms or wind at all. As a matter of fact, it was very nice weather when this occured. Please also keep in mind this is behind a locked gate and no one at all knows we are doing research here. It is also my hunting camp that we deer hunt and turkey hunt. I will await your analysis and feedback.

Thanks,

KB

[Guest DWA]

Nope. You misunderstand the proposition you must prove - that every single piece of evidence is a concoction.

The hoaxes bear no resemblance to the evidence considered live by the scientific proponents. They are thus of no import.

There is no way to evaluate a silly competing thesis "objectively" other than to say that it is silly, and that the one with all the evidence behind it must be pursued. That is objective, and objectivity is the strongest thing I bring to this topic.

I am guided by evidence alone. You are guided by a belief with, as you have admiitted, nothing to back it up.

Right, so again you won't properly address the hypothetical. So how can you properly evaluate any evidence that is contrary to your conclusion? You will not even admit to the possibility that the evidence is not caused by Bigfoot. So you cannot evaluate any competing hypothesis objectively.

(This may be the only scientific topic in which the possibilities for which there is zero evidence are the ones that must be true.)

Zero evidence? Really? Part of the competing hypothesis is that some of the evidence is hoaxed. So, uhm, we have zero evidence of hoaxes do we? Care to adjust your statement?

[Crittergetter]

Crittergetter, I plussed you for writing such a wonderful post. Somehow, I think we may have more in common than not.

I agree, and I think that also could be said about a great number of folks on this forum. If we could just get our heads out of the trench warfare we have going on here, we might be able to get to the bottom of the mystery yet, whether its Sasquatch or some sort of strange sub-clinical psychosis like dmaker said. Either one would be pretty interesting to me, actually.

[dmaker]

So the body of evidence that must be pursued contains zero hoaxes or misidentifications? You have proven that have you? So when one of those pieces gets debunked, like some tracks for example, or some dna that comes back as bear-dog-pig-rug, you then just remove them from your pile of evidence worth pursuing and onward you go? That is pretty handy that. I believe there have been cases of tracks that Meldrum confirmed that have since been debunked as fake. So how does that jive with your worthy evidence? You just take it out of the pile and nothing has changed?

So there are examples of hoaxes (or mistakes) that bear a resemblance to the evidence considered live, contrary to your statement. The case is not closed on the Skookum cast or Patty for example. Even if Bigfoot was revealed to the world, it still does not retroactively validate all of your evidence. It validates that hypothesis that there is a large ape running amok in North America. But it does effectively eliminate the need to validate all of the supporting evidence because who would really care at that point?

DWA, let me just ask you this directly without drawing any hypothetical scenarios. It's a very simple two part question:

What is the probability ( in percent) that the current evidence points towards the existence of Bigfoot? ( whatever that creature may be)

If you answer anything other than %100, then what would you posit as a source for all of this evidence if not Bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

You ain't dropping this, are you? Have you proven that they all are?

People demonstrably applying science to this show that the fakes are all in this garbage bin, while a lot of live stuff is right here.

No one has, and no one will ever, show me a scientist who effectively debates Meldrum et al on the evidence.

Which relieves me of any need to prove anything to anyone. It's on them. I'm just waiting for people to get a clue that Meldrum et al are on to something.

[dmaker]

So you won't answer the questions? LOL, you just can't even admit the possibility that the evidence is wrong, can you?

The fakes end up in the garbage once they are revealed as fakes. Quite a few have also managed to have a period of time where they were on the mantle of worthy evidence prior to that.

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker