Guest Llawgoch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Well then you can just show me where I'm wrong rather than using YOU ARE WRONG! rants as your entire argument. By the way, you couldn't get my oft-stated-here position any wronger than you do...which doesn't bode well for the assignment I just set you. But try anyway. Look at your post #588 then. I can't be bothered to look back any further than one page, and don't need to. A point was made to you, showing you to be wrong. You replied with a non-sequitur. This is what you always do. It is what you will do again. Or #585. There, it's been pointed out to you again how pointless it is for science to go looking for Bigfoots when time upon time has proven that even if Bigfoots do exist, you can't find them or any evidence of them by running into the woods after a sighting. How did you reply? You accused the poster of lying, and without any supporting logic, claimed that he was making your case for you. That's two off this page. I could quote every post. The thing is, all I can say, to show you you're wrong is say "read the exchange - you're obviously wrong". But you don't accept it, and simply say "I've won"., So there's little point. No doubt by tomorrow all the people who think you are in the right will have chimed in to support you. Edited June 11, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Llawgoch, you are trying to reach the unreachable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Maybe he will develop carpal tunnel to avoid answering a question again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 WSA, DWA, When you read Bigfoot eyewitness accounts, do you generally accept them as true? For instance, the report above that DWA posted, the Maryland story; did you read that specific report and think to yourself, "It happened, it's true. This is evidence of Bigfoot. No doubt." Or, do you ever entertain doubt when reading reports from BFRO and elsewhere? Do you ever think: "I wonder if this really happened?" Do you ever think about attending issues, such as the unlikelihood of giant apes living undetected in the Maryland hinterland? Does that type of issue ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever consider that such a report as DWA posted may have alternative explanations, such as it is a simple fabrication with no truth to it? Would you know how to verify the story? Would you ever try to verify it? Or is it just a look, read, and believe event for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 No proof = weak sauce = poor evidence. It kinda trickles down. No evidence has been strong enough to merit proof. Why? Because footprints and 'eyewitness' accounts can be hoaxed. I can show evidence, inductive reasoning of bigfoot hoaxes, and actual, outright bigfoot hoaxes. No one got monkey. Until a body of this imaginary beast is presented to Science, Please, don't expect Science to trip over itself to validate your beliefs on Bigfoot. You may very well have seen a bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Llawgoch, Squatchy and jerrywayne elucidated my thoughts exactly, nothing more to say here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I'm not sure why or how it's so easy to misunderstand a position I have made clear many times here. But here goes...again...: Sasquatch is an open question. Skeptics say they don't have to prove anything. Um, OK. Your prerogative. I don't have to, either. But until 100% of the evidence is shown to be a false positive...what it is remains undetermined. No statute of limitations either. As long as the evidence remains unexamined...it remains unexamined. Anybody who is making conclusions about anything right now is acting on an unfounded belief, and not evidence. Can't do that in science. Refer back to this whenever you're unsure. Well then you can just show me where I'm wrong rather than using YOU ARE WRONG! rants as your entire argument. By the way, you couldn't get my oft-stated-here position any wronger than you do...which doesn't bode well for the assignment I just set you. But try anyway. Look at your post #588 then. I can't be bothered to look back any further than one page, and don't need to. A point was made to you, showing you to be wrong. You replied with a non-sequitur. This is what you always do. It is what you will do again. Or #585. There, it's been pointed out to you again how pointless it is for science to go looking for Bigfoots when time upon time has proven that even if Bigfoots do exist, you can't find them or any evidence of them by running into the woods after a sighting. How did you reply? You accused the poster of lying, and without any supporting logic, claimed that he was making your case for you. Um, no. In both cases, I was simply pointing out what happens when one is ignorant of the evidence. Which says two things: 1) Go into work tomorrow saying you saw a sasquatch and ...I can't believe I have to say this to people. Thinking you will universally be taken seriously is just silly, and contradicted by copious evidence most people just don't bother to read. 2) Go into the woods in places where lots of evidence has been found...and you find lots of evidence (see: Operation Persistence. And don't come back with that tiresome rant about proof not happening on your schedule). Come on guys. Thicken up this thin gruel some. You know, you aren't being argued with here. You'd have to present an argument to do that. WSA, DWA,When you read Bigfoot eyewitness accounts, do you generally accept them as true? For instance, the report above that DWA posted, the Maryland story; did you read that specific report and think to yourself, "It happened, it's true. This is evidence of Bigfoot. No doubt." Or, do you ever entertain doubt when reading reports from BFRO and elsewhere? Do you ever think: "I wonder if this really happened?" Do you ever think about attending issues, such as the unlikelihood of giant apes living undetected in the Maryland hinterland? Does that type of issue ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever consider that such a report as DWA posted may have alternative explanations, such as it is a simple fabrication with no truth to it? Would you know how to verify the story? Would you ever try to verify it? Or is it just a look, read, and believe event for you? I don't consider anything either X or Y until sufficient evidence has been presented to me to show me it is one or the other. In other words: I think about this the way a scientist should. When I say "toss it on the pile," I mean "can you prove to me what that is? If you can't, then we don't know until someone can, do we...?" Having spent way lots of time in MD, I can tell you that to consider the absence of something to be a likely thing that leaves plenty of evidence that most people ignore because, because, well, it can't be! is just not what one does when one is being objective. it's just the continuing it ain't real! rants - unaccompanied by anything that would make an objective person believe that - that are my problem. If bigfoot's solved for you, great. I wouldn't be bothering, personally. I mean, you'll never see me on paranormal sites. Why? I'm not down for it until it's proven to me; that's my position...and it just isn't that interesting. This doesn't seem that interesting for some people here ...and yet there they are, again and again, and again and again and again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 The number of sightings itself, makes the idea that there is a Bigfoot less likely. If there were 10 sightings in the last 40 years, at least you could say Bigfoot is an elusive creature, and we need to go look for it. However, there are 10,000 sightings, in places full of people, on 6 lane divided highways, in freeway rest-areas, on porches in trailer parks, on hillsides in plain view of 100 people, and in state parks crawling with recreational tourists. Animals don't hang out in places like that and not get nabbed. Every time a sighting is added, it means that the idea of Bigfoot existing is less likely. It is not an elusive creature, there are too many sightings to label them 'elusive', therefore Bigfoot should be brought in. Bigfoot has not been brought in therefore, the sightings are an anomaly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Nope. If there were ten sightings, I'd dismiss it out of hand. OK, I'd say: this isn't really interesting me until you give me more than ten people. Ten people can all be lying; all be sick; all be nuts. 10,000? And the reports are making a case that a biologist could buy? What, all 10,000 of them are lying biologists? Naaaah. You can't make that argument to anyone who is reading the reports. Particularly when the scientists who say this isn't real can't give a reason that scans from a scientific standpoint why they think that. Sorry, but that's how it works. I don't Believe In Scientists. Particularly given how often they are wrong. (I could also note that "places full of people" is true of precisely 0 (zero) (no) reports I have read. And I've read most.) Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 If there were ten sightings, I'd dismiss it out of hand. OK, I'd say: this isn't really interesting me until you give me more than ten people. Congratulations on not understanding what motivates real biologists to decide to go look for real biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) Oh. OK. So summing you up: What's wrong with Meldrum? isn't he one of your precious mainstream scientists? Isn't his incompetent search for something that clearly isn't real enough for you? Got it. The ivorybill is extinct, you dodos! So why aren't you doing this for sasquatch, which the evidence says isn't? You gave me an example of how real biologists ignore real biology that is knocking them on their wooden heads, and go chasing ghosts. Nice pictures, though. Thanks! (edited to make clear the situation on the ground) Edited June 12, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I dunno, I think the quest to find a maybe-possibly-probably extinct species, and the resources allocated to that, makes me want to say, "Hey, give us some of that there!" I mean, who you gotta know in this business to get that kind of largesse lavished on you, huh? BFers just must not be taking lunch with the right people is all I can conclude. Is there a high-sign and secret handshake I should know about? Because, I mean, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Well, there's a huge difference between trying to save the last vestige of a species we've driven to extinction - and one thought lost for decades - and a "species" that no one has ever been able to demonstrate exists at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Do you wanna know why they can tell their colleagues with a straight-face, that they are going to look for Ivory Billed Woodpeckers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I'm going quagga-hunting tomorrow. Wanna go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts