Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[WSA]

Let me chime in on that one Dmaker with a question in return...If you were a forensic investigator of crime scenes, looking into a string of similar homocides, what would the elimination of certain killings as being unrelated do to your resolve to still pursue the others? Would you fold your tent and just call it a day?

Edited April 4, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

...then the proponents debunked them.

Again: when all the science is on one side of the question, I rest my case. "Answering the questions" is like hypothetically making the case that the moon is green cheese.

Why...?

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.

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?

How would I answer that question?

One of the things I tell wayward scientists the most: if you cite a number, you better say where you got it.

Where would that number come from? It is one of the symptoms of hyper-empiricism that people pull numbers out of their [lower vents] to make their wild guesses sound authoritative. (Looking at you, Cartmill. Looking at you, Scott.)

What is this semantic trap crap? You really aren't interested in a resolution to this, are you?

Want a number? Then let me assign a number to something I just said:

100 (one hundred) percent (%) of the science being done on this question is being done by the proponents.

When this is true, there is only one serious alternative to pursue: the ape.

(I mean, you said yourself that there is no way to pursue any other alternative. So how and why do you propose to do that?)

[dmaker]

Let me chime in on that one Dmaker with a question in return...If you were a forensic investigator of crime scenes, looking into a string of similar homocides, what would the elimination of certain killings as being unrelated do to your resolve to still pursue the others? Would you fold your tent and just call it a day?

But you are forgetting an important piece of this puzzle in your analogy. If I was saying that all these killings are the work of one person for these reasons and then that started proving to be wrong on a case by case basis. Then, yeah, I think it's valid to start to question why I thought they were all caused by the same person and at least entertain the idea that maybe my theory is incorrect.

[Guest DWA]

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.

I would agree with you on that. But the trench warfare is being waged by the antis. That's simply the case.

When a proposition is out there; all available evidence backs that proposition; and people are coming on and on and on writing veritable books that translated basically amount to "not proven yet," something is going on, and it's not good for science.

I don't argue. I educate. The next generation of scientists is coming onto this site, count on it. And what they are seeing is that cryptozoology is the only field where the rules of science don't apply.

That should not be the case. And as long as people put propositions with which they don't appear to have spent sufficient intellectual time up here, education is gonna happen.

[dmaker]

DWA, I'm trying to see if there is any room in your head for the notion that you are wrong. That even if the proper scientific effort was applied to this, that it would still not produce anything close to proof of BF. And you are clearly showing that there is no room in your head for you being wrong. It just does not compute. The evidence points to Bigfoot and nothing else. Yet you still claim that you are objective about this. I don't understand that. Where is the objectivity when you insist on one, and one only, possible outcome?

Edited April 4, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Let me chime in on that one Dmaker with a question in return...If you were a forensic investigator of crime scenes, looking into a string of similar homocides, what would the elimination of certain killings as being unrelated do to your resolve to still pursue the others? Would you fold your tent and just call it a day?

But you are forgetting an important piece of this puzzle in your analogy. If I was saying that all these killings are the work of one person for these reasons and then that started proving to be wrong on a case by case basis. Then, yeah, I think it's valid to start to question why I thought they were all caused by the same person and at least entertain the idea that maybe my theory is incorrect.

Not an analogous case. As I said: the hoaxes are clearly of human manufacture. Then there is all this stuff on which no such signs seem to have been detected. That remains live...as does the thesis that the postulated source is making it.

[Martin]

Let me chime in on that one Dmaker with a question in return...If you were a forensic investigator of crime scenes, looking into a string of similar homocides, what would the elimination of certain killings as being unrelated do to your resolve to still pursue the others? Would you fold your tent and just call it a day?

Problem is there is no crime scene and the only evidence of a crime happening is based primarily on reports filtered by urban legend.

[dmaker]

Let me chime in on that one Dmaker with a question in return...If you were a forensic investigator of crime scenes, looking into a string of similar homocides, what would the elimination of certain killings as being unrelated do to your resolve to still pursue the others? Would you fold your tent and just call it a day?

But you are forgetting an important piece of this puzzle in your analogy. If I was saying that all these killings are the work of one person for these reasons and then that started proving to be wrong on a case by case basis. Then, yeah, I think it's valid to start to question why I thought they were all caused by the same person and at least entertain the idea that maybe my theory is incorrect.

Not an analogous case. As I said: the hoaxes are clearly of human manufacture. Then there is all this stuff on which no such signs seem to have been detected. That remains live...as does the thesis that the postulated source is making it.

Wasn't my analogy

[Guest Tontar]

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 template has been established a long time ago. We all know what bigfoot is supposed to look like, generally. So when someone has a mistaken sighting, or a mental thing like a hallucination, the general image of a bigfoot is easy to project. Just as the alien abduction reports all use a similar template which has been established well before our generation. It's the details, not the generalities, that expose such things as mental fabrications. The shape of bigfoot's head has evolved in the sightings, just as it has evolved in popular culture. The cone head, for example. It has grown taller and taller in sightings, because it has grown taller and taller in movies and commercial images. The nose is always different because the nose is a detail that is often overlooked when people visualize bigfoot. It has to be reinvented each time a false sighting is made. It will vary from looking exactly like a gorilla nose, to a human nose, to a dog nose, and everything in between. No other primate species has that broad of variation. The general template for bigfoot is always there; big, 7-10 feet tall, or essentially as high as Bobo can stretch his hand over his head, and long arms, and wide as a house, and walks with swinging arms, and turns its head and stares, and the sound they make always varies too. With TV and the internet, most things are starting to come toward a common center now, but historically the descriptions are unique and customized by the sighter. That's because there is not a real bigfoot animal being seen, it is something else, a mistake, a hallucination, something not bigfoot, that has to be molded into the image of bigfoot, with standardized general attributes, but wildly varying detailed attributes.

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

The ape is not the smart bet. A bet is only smart when a winning conclusion can be realized. And to date, that has not been shown to be the case. There has been no ape presented as a conclusion. Only stories of apes, but no ape. Not even a piece of one.

I saw the mention of all this "biodata" existing. What biodata? Last I heard, there was zero biodata. Last I heard, all there has ever been is questionable and not quantifiable sightings, as well as mysterious footprints that have never been confirmed to come from a wild creature, and most often have been confirmed to come from human makers. There has never been anything to connect tracks to a wild ape. Never, ever, has there been any way to connect tracks to a bigfoot that had made them. Tracks are the worst kind of evidence of all, since they can be made by virtually anyone, and have been made by a good number of people throughout time, across the country, even in other countries apparently. For the most part, tracks could be wiped from the evidence pile as incredibly suspect, and not at all compelling.

That leaves sightings. And a creature sighting is not biodata. It is also highly suspect, and absolutely not reliable evidence. Let's analyze sightings. Which ones are real, which ones are not? Sort that pile. Do you accept all of them? The ones where the bigfoots run on all fours, faster than deer? The ones where they are seen doing the traveling hobo on trains? The ones where they braid horse manes? The ones where they appear and disappear, using some unknown cloaking ability, possibly infrasound disruption of the human eye or brain? The ones where they have absolutely human faces, and can communicate telepathically? The ones where they look just like a gorilla with long human legs? The ones where they leave synthetic hair behind? Or dog hair? Or bear hair? Where do you draw the line for validating sightings?

Do you believe that mothman was real? There were numerous sightings of that, right? People are subject to suggestion, they always have been. If they are primed to see something in questionable circumstances, they generally can and will see it. What they think they see is completely malleable as well. Perhaps you've seen how the power of suggestion is able to create the solid memory of having been abducted by aliens, during experiments showing the power of suggestion. The same is true of domestic abuse in children. ask the right questions, and you can mold a memory into something completely different from reality. Sightings are just as bad as footprints.

What's needed as evidence is something far better than sightings and footprints. And unfortunately, the evidence is sorely lacking in other categories.

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.

I think you dismiss and/or insult a good many people that have put forth a huge amount of effort searching for the "ape", and have never found it. You insult some very prominent researchers that have spent their entire lives, and their assets, at great expense to their reputations and their families, by dismissing or not acknowledging their efforts in this search. You dismiss all of that, and insult those people in the process, because that's the only way that you can hang onto the mistaken idea that the ape hasn't been found because the search has not yet begun. Your argument is not only flawed, it's damaging to good people. Certainly, since you claim to be so well read on the subject, you can come up with a rather long list of such people. If not, I or anyone else can do that for you.

I can respect the efforts of those who bust their butts and their wallets searching for bigfoot. I can accept that many are very good people as well. I may think that they are mistaken or misguided, but even if I do, I would not disregard their efforts the way you, a proponent, seem to do rather regularly. When skeptical people acknowledge and respect the efforts of proponents, and proponents refuse to acknowledge or respect the efforts of other proponents, it's clear that this world of bigfoot is upside down.

[Guest DWA]

DWA, I'm trying to see if there is any room in your head for the notion that you are wrong. That even if the proper scientific effort was applied to this, that it would still not produce anything close to proof of BF. And you are clearly showing that there is no room in your head for you being wrong. It just does not compute. The evidence points to Bigfoot and nothing else. Yet you still claim that you are objective about this. I don't understand that. Where is the objectivity when you insist on one, and one only, possible outcome?

You still are not getting this.

(I don't argue. I educate.)

100% of the science being done on this subject points to one possibility.

(He still makes no effort to contradict this. One scientist that goes with him, and how it's an effective stance. ONE. All he has to produce. And nothing.)

So. Now. Voila! I will do mental gymnastics for the next three pages on how the alternative with no evidence backing it up beats the one with all the evidence backing it up! This can only happen in cryptozoology, where for some reason it is tolerated. So let's go...!

You are stuck on this, aren't you?

I want the alternative being backed by 100% of the science properly investigated before the green-cheese, flat-earth, here-be-dragons, base-metal-into-gold alternatives are (however the heck we would do that, and you have already said we can't) ...are, snicker, 'investigated.'

I believe nothing, until the proof is obtained. I just don't think that clicking heels three times and saying sasquatchisbear! backwards will get us there.

You?

.

I think you dismiss and/or insult a good many people that have put forth a huge amount of effort searching for the "ape", and have never found it. You insult some very prominent researchers that have spent their entire lives, and their assets, at great expense to their reputations and their families, by dismissing or not acknowledging their efforts in this search.

Aaaaaaaaaaah...the 'please let the lovable pat-head incompetents continue the search without help, it's all that's keeping me afloat here' argument.

Disingenuous, in the extreme. You do see, right, that your entire stance constitutes an insult to them?

I want them to get the help they need (how much field time again? You don't know that, do you?) so we can see you are wrong and they are right.

But you'd rather dignify their noble quest while snickering at their results. It's a, er, mindset, is all I can say about that, really.

[Guest LarryP]

The cone head, for example. It has grown taller and taller in sightings, because it has grown taller and taller in movies and commercial images. The nose is always different because the nose is a detail that is often overlooked when people visualize bigfoot. It has to be reinvented each time a false sighting is made. It will vary from looking exactly like a gorilla nose, to a human nose, to a dog nose, and everything in between. No other primate species has that broad of variation.

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

[Guest DWA]

They certainly do; more than one scholar of the great apes has said that, not just about humans but about the known apes; and anyone who pulls that sort of conclusion from the encounter literature hasn't thought about this.

Lemme guess. Tontar. Right?

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

The ape is not the smart bet. A bet is only smart when a winning conclusion can be realized. And to date, that has not been shown to be the case. There has been no ape presented as a conclusion. Only stories of apes, but no ape. Not even a piece of one.

I saw the mention of all this "biodata" existing. What biodata? Last I heard, there was zero biodata. Last I heard, all there has ever been is questionable and not quantifiable sightings, as well as mysterious footprints that have never been confirmed to come from a wild creature, and most often have been confirmed to come from human makers. There has never been anything to connect tracks to a wild ape. Never, ever, has there been any way to connect tracks to a bigfoot that had made them. Tracks are the worst kind of evidence of all, since they can be made by virtually anyone, and have been made by a good number of people throughout time, across the country, even in other countries apparently. For the most part, tracks could be wiped from the evidence pile as incredibly suspect, and not at all compelling.

That leaves sightings. And a creature sighting is not biodata. It is also highly suspect, and absolutely not reliable evidence. Let's analyze sightings. Which ones are real, which ones are not? Sort that pile. Do you accept all of them? The ones where the bigfoots run on all fours, faster than deer? The ones where they are seen doing the traveling hobo on trains? The ones where they braid horse manes? The ones where they appear and disappear, using some unknown cloaking ability, possibly infrasound disruption of the human eye or brain? The ones where they have absolutely human faces, and can communicate telepathically? The ones where they look just like a gorilla with long human legs? The ones where they leave synthetic hair behind? Or dog hair? Or bear hair? Where do you draw the line for validating sightings?

Do you believe that mothman was real? There were numerous sightings of that, right? People are subject to suggestion, they always have been. If they are primed to see something in questionable circumstances, they generally can and will see it. What they think they see is completely malleable as well. Perhaps you've seen how the power of suggestion is able to create the solid memory of having been abducted by aliens, during experiments showing the power of suggestion. The same is true of domestic abuse in children. ask the right questions, and you can mold a memory into something completely different from reality. Sightings are just as bad as footprints.

What's needed as evidence is something far better than sightings and footprints. And unfortunately, the evidence is sorely lacking in other categories.

Wrong. The ape is the smart bet.

Once again, you think that your chances of winning a bet must be 100% before the bet is placed. That's not betting. That's knowing.

We've gone over this. "Not proven" sums up all the novels you have written here. And I simply respond "so let's prove it." But you don't want to. Interesting, that.

And the novel above shows that you still need to work on how to think about what you've read, and how to synthesize and parse like a scientist does.

Biodata. Oh yeah. I saw it; directly relevant scientists have seen it; no one who demurs has a demurrer that makes sense.

(Mothman? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?)

Edited April 4, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

The cone head, for example. It has grown taller and taller in sightings, because it has grown taller and taller in movies and commercial images. The nose is always different because the nose is a detail that is often overlooked when people visualize bigfoot. It has to be reinvented each time a false sighting is made. It will vary from looking exactly like a gorilla nose, to a human nose, to a dog nose, and everything in between. No other primate species has that broad of variation.

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

Where is the dog nosed boy?

[Guest DWA]

[he speaketh in riddles!]

And that scientist who makes a compelling case that all of this is a crock? Missed his name. Pen ready...

[Guest Tontar]

Human beings certainly have that broad of variation.

You've seen humans that have a nose exactly like a gorilla and like a dog, complete with the pebble finished "leather" at the tip? That have coned heads as tall as Harry's, and as flat as a chimp's? I seriously doubt that you have.