Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest DWA]

Nobody's making up anything. Although I do wonder why someone would call this a "tired" discussion when his own view is the major contributor to that. ("No proof." That's....do they have a number that high yet...?)

I CANNOT - CAN NOT - CAN'T - UTTERLY NAN COT - UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE INTERESTED IN A TOPIC WOULD CONSIDER A SIMPLE REQUEST TO FOLLOW EVIDENCE TO A CONCLUSION "AVOIDING THE QUESTION." Only in cryptozoology can this happen; and it won't be a science until that mindset is banished outright, the way it is in the other hard sciences.

And I can tell much about one's orientation toward and understanding of science when one uses as his standard-bearers on a topic the scientists I can plainly see aren't intellectually engaging the topic at all.

[dmaker]

Again you are side stepping my point. I said follow evidence to a conclusion all you want. In fact, I have said that many times in this thread. The thing you are avoiding is that you cannot make claims like all the evidence we have for Sasquatch is proven until Sasquatch is actually proven. That is, after all, pretty clear and pretty simple. I am even sure the much revered Meldrum would have to agree with that statement.

Could you please confirm that you understand that point and that you cannot, while remaining objective and truthful, pop from thread to thread making claims that are not true. If you refuse to do this you are just showing that you will not accept the reality of the situation.

And just so that we are clear. I will repeat myself: following evidence to a conclusion is absolutely what should be done here and is, in fact, what is being attempted by people in the field. See that? Can everyone see that? So please stop claiming that I am saying otherwise. But until that claim is proven out, the evidence remains conditional and CANNOT be claimed to be proven to come from Sasquatch as you said.

[Guest DWA]

[196 pages, DWA, and he thinks you consider sasquatch proven. What is with that?] <Not sure, man. I am thinking about it; Meldrum and I have exchanged many emails. We are following the evidence to a conclusion, but we just aren't there yet.> [Well, good luck, DWA. Science is about persistence.] <There are other kinds of persistence. And he talks about "not accept[ing] the reality of the situation.> [no kidding - rolls eyes]

[dmaker]

I never said that you consider Sasquatch proven. I have spent enough time in this thread to understand that much, thank-you very much. The statement I have issue with, which you posted very recently, is the following:

"Everything with the evidence we have for sasquatch is proven...except sasquatch."

Maybe I misunderstood you. I take issue with that statement as I have mentioned because Sasquatch is not yet proven, therefore NO evidence for Sasquatch is proven as you claim above. Perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to explain what you meant by that statement. Perhaps I jumped the gun and was lead to an interpretation of that statement by your other proclamations of fact such as we have poo and hair from Sasquatch. Which, of course, is not a proven fact until Sasquatch is a proven fact.

But please, explain to me how I misunderstood your statement.

Edited April 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

If you had read up properly you would understand that statement. bipto put it pretty well in his last post on the Operation Persistence thread too. There is no phenomenon - not one - for which the volume of consistent evidence exists that we have for sasquatch that is not accepted as real. In fact, we have far less evidence for many things we accept. The only difference is scientists' opinion that for those things, the meager evidence we have amounts to proof. And no, it does not matter that the evidence amounts to a specimen, or a clear photo. What matters is the volume, and the consistency, which fairly scream: if you want a specimen here is a place you might look.

WSA calls it "hyper-empiricism," this apparent belief that nothing is real until it's proven, and that all evidence that isn't proof is crap. From a purely scientific standpoint, it does not matter that we have a specimen for x, and "merely" a titanic pile of extraordinarily consistent evidence for y. The case that both phenomena are real is pretty much equal.

[dmaker]

So, let me see if I understand your statement, since you did not really clarify it. You are saying that the evidence for Sasquatch is proven ( despite there being not a single actual Sasquatch provided) because there is a whole lot of it? And it's good evidence of the type that would normally be accepted? But science is close minded to Sasquatch and therefore will not accept this evidence as proof of existence, but will instead insist on an actual Sasquatch? But it's ok, you can still go ahead and tell the world that the evidence is proven because we have a great big ole pile of evidence, so who needs a specimen after all?

That about sum it up? That pile can get as high ( and stinky ) as you want, it still does not prove Sasquatch no matter how much you want it to.

Edited April 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Wow. Break time. ("No proof" as their entire case. "No clarification" despite....wow. Break time.)

[WSA]

It might help you Dmaker if you start with this premise: The case for Sasquatch is utterly unique in the annals of recorded natural history. The evidence for it is likewise.

There is no parallel or comparison case in all of human history that squarely matches it. We all deafen ourselves and each other with endless "it is like..." statements, but it is not. It is not like dragons and unicorns. It is not like mountain gorillas, wolverines or unidentified amoebas. It IS like a Sasquatch/Yeti/Wood Ape/Skunk Ape/Bigfoot. You either have the ability to grasp this, or you will be completely frustrated by the discussion of the possibility/probabilities.

The world this putative creature might inhabit is your world, but, most assuredly, it is also not. In spades. You can either imagine that world, or beat your head against it endlessly in incomprehension. There is only one phrase that sums it up, overused though it may be, thus: It is what it is. Nothing else.

Virtually all who have had the courage to put their reality at risk by stepping outside the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..) have come to some greater realizations about what it is, and, most importantly, what it isn't.

[Guest DWA]

PLUSSED MAJOR! HIGH FIVE! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAH!! YEEAAAAAAAHHHEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

(I just know that when dmaker can't argue with us effectively, he uses pluses as evidence that sasquatch isn't real.)

(Even though I have seen this traditionally as a bigfoot skeptic clique thing, that real skeptics only do to verify clear thinking when they see it.)

But watch, he'll say "no proof" again. Devastating counter. DEVASTATING.

And BTW, this - "the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..)" - is a very good alternative label for "hyper-empiricism," the religion of bigfoot skeptics. (And far too many others.) But I know you know that.

[dmaker]

I'm not talking about unicorns, or dragons, or anything of the like. I am doing one very simple thing right now.

I want DWA to acknowledge that the evidence for Sasquatch is NOT proven yet. It is conditional upon Sasquatch being proven. Yet he continues to speak and act like that is not a fact and completely avoids responding to that specific point. He cannot admit that, because it will contradict many of his points. So instead he plusses you, talks to himself in posts, and does everything BUT acknowledge that fact.

PLUSSED MAJOR! HIGH FIVE! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAH!! YEEAAAAAAAHHHEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

(I just know that when dmaker can't argue with us effectively, he uses pluses as evidence that sasquatch isn't real.)

(Even though I have seen this traditionally as a bigfoot skeptic clique thing, that real skeptics only do to verify clear thinking when they see it.)

But watch, he'll say "no proof" again. Devastating counter. DEVASTATING.

And BTW, this - "the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..)" - is a very good alternative label for "hyper-empiricism," the religion of bigfoot skeptics. (And far too many others.) But I know you know that.

Yeah, that's me. Using plusses as evidence that BF doesn't exist. Who's getting snarky now? Edited April 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

...and That's Incredible. Like 196 or so pages now and he still thinks that. [Well, DWA, this is why you keep doing interesting things to keep yourself entertained.] <Yeah, dwa. Can I do your name no-caps? And start with one bracket type, and end with another?} Yes, indeed. <Yeah, me too, dwa.} I think dmaker may be a bot. Either that or that Bindernagel book was an utter waste of his money. [Oh totally , DWA .] <mE tOO,dwA.}

[Guest DWA]

I absolutely cannot help it that you are not giving us anything to discuss with you.

If you don't get that "no proof" repeated over and over, ad infinitum, summarizes your position well beyond anything you have posted, there is no more to discuss.

[Guest]

Evidence and proof, two differant things.

[ohiobill]

It might help you Dmaker if you start with this premise: The case for Sasquatch is utterly unique in the annals of recorded natural history. The evidence for it is likewise.

There is no parallel or comparison case in all of human history that squarely matches it. We all deafen ourselves and each other with endless "it is like..." statements, but it is not. It is not like dragons and unicorns. It is not like mountain gorillas, wolverines or unidentified amoebas. It IS like a Sasquatch/Yeti/Wood Ape/Skunk Ape/Bigfoot. You either have the ability to grasp this, or you will be completely frustrated by the discussion of the possibility/probabilities.

The world this putative creature might inhabit is your world, but, most assuredly, it is also not. In spades. You can either imagine that world, or beat your head against it endlessly in incomprehension. There is only one phrase that sums it up, overused though it may be, thus: It is what it is. Nothing else.

Virtually all who have had the courage to put their reality at risk by stepping outside the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..) have come to some greater realizations about what it is, and, most importantly, what it isn't.

Why do you feel bigfoot is unique in the world of cryptids? Are there other cryptids with both historical and recent sightings along with purported blurry proof?

[Guest DWA]

Because we read up. Honestly, I could post what you and dmaker posted in a discussion of semantochemophysics, and convey as much. Are you interested? Why not find out yourself, like we did?