Guest Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (Never mind that on the whole suite of measurements one can take, Patty is outside the norm for humans.) Also outside the norm for humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Whoops. I was wrong about the "one guy" on the broad issue. Read Meldrum, p. 163. Also read it for a neat debunking of Daegling's cherrypick. See one of many ways I'm not Radford? (Never mind that on the whole suite of measurements one can take, Patty is outside the norm for humans.) Also outside the norm for humans. Exactly. I rest my case. ("You love me." Demonstrably false.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 I don't know Mr.Radford and while I agree with the general gist of his article, it is not very generous in its citations and presents a pretty narrow sample. Fine, can understand your point. The only reason I am where I am on this is the skeptics' relentless refusal to take on the science of the proponents. That's it. No dog in the hunt otherwise, other than that, OK, it's fun to talk about and it would be cool if it were real. So would dragons. OK, not maybe so much. Unicorns, though, unicorns, definitely. He is guilty of what you were just denouncing from skeptics. [snipp]. He then proceeds to explain this prevailing knowledge as two, yes, two things: the claim that all Bigfoot tracks are hoaxed; and two, that claim that all Bigfoot encounters are the source of mis-identified bears. Yes, that is it. Those are probably the most-cited skeptical objections I have read or heard. By a lot. I don't see any issue in taking them on for that reason alone. That is addressing one's opponents' arguments. He does not mention tracks that are not hoaxed, but are simply mistaken. He does not mention the numerous other sources of eye witness reports: mis-identified animals other than bear, including humans, hallucinations, pariedolia, liars, hoaxers, drugs and alcohol, peer pressure, mental illness, etc, etc, etc. No, just....bears. Just bears and faked tracks. That is all he decides he needs to deal with before he can go on with the assumption that Sasquatch is real. And, I would like to point out, he makes a point that one of his strongest sources is going to be anecdotal accounts. And this is a scientific book? I think not. No, actually, it is. For one thing, he doesn't need to take on all those things. Those are skeptical theses; and it is up to skeptics to prove them. Otherwise, skeptics are relying on belief. They are asking me to - yes - ditch my skepticism, and Just Believe that all those things are in play, despite my opinion - never challenged - that it makes the skeptical thesis exponentially more difficult to swallow. All this consistency coming from all those causes? That's Occam whispering in your ear not to bet it. Bindernagel isn't assuming anything. He is simply showing the consistency of many accounts and making the scientific case for what the specific things, consistently reported, represent. It doesn't require proof to be a scientific case for further study, just frequency and coherence - both of which are there. I am only close to a third through right now, so maybe my take is premature. I can accept that. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, but so far that is what this book is coming across with to me. I am heading to the cottage tonight for some campfire reading and I am bringing it along. We'll see if the tone changes much. Again, what sways me is that Bindernagel's assertions square well with my experience and knowledge of relevant topics. Skeptics? Asking me to believe in something - and ditch what I know, and the funny smell of what they're offering me - just won't work. I'm skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) No, what Bindernagel is doing is making the price of entry low enough that buying into his theory is simpler. What's that you say? I only need to disavow myself of the silly notion that all Bigfoot tracks are hoaxed and that all eye witness reports are the result of a mis-identified bear? Well, that's easy to do. I'm in! Never mind with dealing with a wider range of competing theories and ideas. Let's just narrow the field in one fell swoop thus making it easier to dismiss and get on with the good stuff--the assumption that Sasquatch is real because people say so. Yeah, heard that somewhere else before too. Edited June 27, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) Easy fella your making sense...no room for that here LOL! Nothing like a bunch of this to keep a discussion going.. Another great post D-Man!! Edited June 27, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Nope, it's not bad science just because it isn't going in the direction you want. I was available for anybody that wanted me in this discussion. The reason the proponents won: evidence. But the skeptics are still trying to Make Me Believe. It doesn't work that way. I've seen and interacted with too many people for someone to just Make Me Believe that they can innocently hallucinate giant bipedal apes. Or run all over the continent, to remote places where no one is likely to see their handiwork, hoaxing tracks that fool experts. (Or fit in that Patty suit. Or make one a person could fit in and walk like that, Take One, and then obliterate all evidence. And never take credit.) You think that's up, you gotta prove it to me. Otherwise, the proponents have a thesis that neatly and biologically scans: this animal is making those tracks. I need to see evidence that any of those theories are worth a minute of my precious time. I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 No, what Bindernagel is doing is making the price of entry low enough that buying into his theory is simpler. What's that you say? I only need to disavow myself of the silly notion that all Bigfoot tracks are hoaxed and that all eye witness reports are the result of a mis-identified bear? Well, that's easy to do. I'm in! Never mind with dealing with a wider range of competing theories and ideas. Let's just narrow the field in one fell swoop thus making it easier to dismiss and get on with the good stuff--the assumption that Sasquatch is real because people say so. Yeah, heard that somewhere else before too. Iam not following....... Are you saying that proving all Bigfoot tracks are absolutely real is an easy task? Haven't read the book mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Not at all. I am saying that when you reduce the skeptical argument to only two main points it paints an inaccurate picture and makes it easier to dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 (edited) How can one dismiss reality? Bigfoot doesn't officially exist, and mr bindernagel cannot argue it into existence...... This must be one heck of a argument!!! Edited June 27, 2013 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 Tell him that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 As a proponent I do not advocate anyone lowering the net for Sasquatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Just to give you a bit of an idea of where I find reason to pause so far in my reading of Dr.Bindernagel's book is the following from page 1, Part 1: "This interpretation--that costumed humans and human track-makers are responsible for all sasquatch sightings and tracks--appears to have become the most widely accepted explantion of the sasquatch phenomenon" This is what ressonates with me the wrong way. There are, in my oft stated opinion, a myriad of other sources for sightings and tracks. How many times have photos of tracks been offered up only to be suggested by experienced members even of this board as an example of a more mundane animal, perhaps bounding? Dr.Bindernagel does not mention those but instead goes right for the more insidious source as human hoaxers. And again, in my opinion, this approach when taken as the primary or sole source of sighting reports does not truly address all the possible sources for those sightings. I feel that many sightings can be attributed to things other than hoaxing such as mis-identifying other animals ( and not just bears Dr.Bindernagel), pariedolia, drugs or alcohol, peer pressure, peer acceptance, mental illness ( in the clinical sense not the I am being mean or derogatory sense), subconscious media suggestion, etc. I think by saying that people think Sasquatch tracks and sightings are only a result of Dr.Bindernagel's rather narrow suggestion is not really looking at the phenomenon from all the possible angles. Thus making it easier to dismiss: as in, surely this can't all be a hoax? Sure, not all. I agree. But that doesnt mean that the sightings or tracks reported that were not hoaxed are therefore Bigfoot. That is my point. I am interested in the social or psycholigical legs that this phenomenon has. That is, actually, one of the main reasons I remain a member of this board. I would like to add that I hope that I do not come across as some armchair psychologist. If memory serves I signed up for Psych 101 but swapped it out for something else in the ever popular 'drop and add" period of a semester. Which probably means I didn't like the time slot for the lectures and being a typical lazy undergrad opted for a clean slate, so to speak, in some other course Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Iam sure he did not have a snow trackway in mind when he wrote that. If you have a five toed Bigfoot trackway in mud in front of you? Where you can make out the toes, the heel and the correct left and right step sequence? There are only two explanations for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Two? Being what and what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Hoax or real. Giant bunnies and bounding mule deer need not apply with a track way like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts