Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[dmaker]

...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.}

And this is your response to my rather direct and incredibly clear request? Gibberish? Really? I have asked you three times now for something very simple and you continue to ignore it. And post that garbage instead? Nice.

[Guest DWA]

"No proof." Two words. Practice them. Or else, give me something to do. Not that responding to "no proof" is really something to do. You know, right, that I post garbage to respond to same? You know, right, that you could put your posts, unchanged, in a discussion of nanopartozoochemostronomy, and they would signify as much? 196 pages, man. (Thereabouts.) Come. The. Freak. ON. Give me something to respond to, an informed opinion mayhap? Only here can the unread come on as the learned, and it gets old. Two words are your whole position? Come. Da. Foo.Reak. ON.here.

Bindernagel. Page 2 yet? Persevere.

[dmaker]

^^ So in other words, no. You refuse to comment directly to my point. OK.

[ohiobill]

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?

Is your unique perspective a result of reading or "by stepping outside the very limited and pitiful manner in which we inhabit the natural world (or, more succinctly, the way we don't..)" as WSA states? My question was for WSA (I preceded my questions with his post #68) but since you feel obligated to answer questions for everyone but yourself perhaps you can elaborate as to exactly why WSA feels Sasquatch is unique vs yowie, yetie etc?

[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.

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?

Well yeah, what DWA said. I can't claim to have even read most of the natural history of the world to date, but I have read a boatload. I used to haunt the Smithsonian as a kid and spent countless hours playing in the outside world (and fervently wish I still did more often,) and was raised by very curious and practical people. I've read more than most everyone I've ever engaged on the discipline of natural history who hasn't achieved graduate level degrees on the subject, and sometimes even them.. I respect DWA mainly for the fact that he shares a similar passion for learnig as much as he can about this world, and he has a HUGE database of outside experiences to draw on. Buuut, we are hardly special or unique in this regard. There are tons of people who have applied their practical knowledge of the world to this subject. I''ll say again: Virtually all who dive deep into this evidence come out with the same overall concusion: Much more likely than not. Frankly though, I find the whole proof v. evidence debate pretty tiring and circular, and not very useful. I'm more about the probability and how some seem to have an allergy to even seriously daring to propose the mere question and examine what that means to their place in the world. But, if some choose to be left behind on that point, no skin off of me, ya know?

Edited April 2, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

^^ So in other words, no. You refuse to comment directly to my point. OK.

Um...what's your point...?

[dmaker]

DWA, I am not asking you to respond to "No proof", or to garbage. In fact I am simply asking you to explain your own words:

"Everything with the evidence we have for sasquatch is proven...except sasquatch." What exactly is "proven" in this statement? And how so? These are your own words, so I would imagine you would jump at the chance to "educate" as you so often put it in this thread. So please, do so.

[WSA]

But to answer your question more directly Ohiobill....I think it comes down to this: We are talking about a putative creature who is as close to ourselves as can be, while still being an "other." If it exists, it does not submit itself to be controlled by us or to allow itself to be bent to our childish will. As far as I can tell, it has figured us out very well, better than we have figured out ourselves, and much better than we have discerned its nature. What we are experiencing is the acute disparity between the knowledge we have of ourselves and it, and its knowledge of us. Yes, that is very unique.

Edited April 2, 2013 by WV FOOTER
Remove Objectionable Material

[dmaker]

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?

Well yeah, what DWA said. I can't claim to have even read most of the natural history of the world to date, but I have read a boatload. I used to haunt the Smithsonian as a kid and spent countless hours playing in the outside world (and fervently wish I still did more often,) and was raised by very curious and practical people. I've read more than most everyone I've ever engaged on the discipline of natural history who hasn't achieved graduate level degrees on the subject, and sometimes even them.. I respect DWA mainly for the fact that he shares a similar passion for learnig as much as he can about this world, and he has a HUGE database of outside experiences to draw on. Buuut, we are hardly special or unique in this regard. There are tons of people who have applied their practical knowledge of the world to this subject. I''ll say again: Virtually all who dive deep into this evidence come out with the same overall concusion: Much more likely than not. Frankly though, I find the whole proof v. evidence debate pretty tiring and circular, and not very useful. I'm more about the probability and how some seem to have an allergy to even seriously daring to propose the mere question and examine what that means to their place in the world. But, if some choose to be left behind on that point, no skin off of me, ya know?

WSA, Bigfoot means nothing to my place in the world. If BF is proven to be real, my place in the world will remain the same. In fact, it will be a little more interesting. I am not threatened at all by the notion of Bigfoot. I really don't understand this comment and it comes from you and DWA fairly often. I will not be shaken to my core if BF exists. Not even close. BF is an interesting piece of folklore and pop-culture to me. If it proves out to be more than that, great. But why would my place in the world be in any way changed? I have no huge, vested interest in BF one way or another. I find myself spending time here and arguing with you and DWA because it irks me enough to respond when I see something stated as fact that is not. I tire of the same old, same old in Footery. Oh look another collection of stories! Great! Can we see the Monkey now? We can't? What a surprise.

[Guest DWA]

Well yeah, what DWA said. I can't claim to have even read most of the natural history of the world to date, but I have read a boatload. I used to haunt the Smithsonian as a kid and spent countless hours playing in the outside world (and fervently wish I still did more often,) and was raised by very curious and practical people. I've read more than most everyone I've ever engaged on the discipline of natural history who hasn't achieved graduate level degrees on the subject, and sometimes even them.. I respect DWA mainly for the fact that he shares a similar passion for learnig as much as he can about this world, and he has a HUGE database of outside experiences to draw on. Buuut, we are hardly special or unique in this regard. There are tons of people who have applied their practical knowledge of the world to this subject. I''ll say again: Virtually all who dive deep into this evidence come out with the same overall concusion: Much more likely than not. Frankly though, I find the whole proof v. evidence debate pretty tiring and circular, and not very useful. I'm more about the probability and how some seem to have an allergy to even seriously daring to propose the mere question and examine what that means to their place in the world. But, if some choose to be left behind on that point, no skin off of me, ya know?

Ditto. I think I may have forgotten more about animals than many zoologists know. And I got there (I was already there by like age 10 - a place one can get when one is reading National Geographic by age 3) through simple curiosity. I care, like WSA, about the world, and don't consider myself to know enough about anything. I have, as he notes and as he has done, bolstered my education through my bootsoles to the point that if you don't have a serious opinion, I will know it fast and you will hear it just as fast. Both WSA and I are not here to argue. We are here to educate, because we see how much of that is to be done here. Too many people use science as a religion, and don't recognize it as a practice, practiced by imperfect people who in many cases don't know as much as we do about a topic. When we say that too few scientists have a serious opinion on this topic, that is not an opinion. It is a fact we can see in the very things scientists say.

Edited April 2, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

It's like a 45 year long sideshow that is hard to stop watching once you buy your ticket. I often wish I had never looked under the hood and just left BF as some interesting figure from my childhood.

[Guest DWA]

At age 11, I knew that a serious scientific case existed for sasquatch. If you don't yet...well, ask yourself how you would respond to people who don't know something now that you knew at age 11. Yeah. We're human too; and when we see ignorance coming on as intelligence - the religion of hyper-empiricism that dominates the lamestream attitude toward this topic - we react to it. Not too kindly.

[dmaker]

But to answer your question more directly Ohiobill....I think it comes down to this: We are talking about a putative creature who is as close to ourselves as can be, while still being an "other." If it exists, it does not submit itself to be controlled by us or to allow itself to be bent to our childish will. As far as I can tell, it has figured us out very well, better than we have figured out ourselves, and much better than we have discerned its nature. What we are experiencing is the acute disparity between the knowledge we have of ourselves and it, and its knowledge of us. This is a close to our concept of a deity as you can get. Yes, that is very unique.

That sounds a bit fringy there WSA. I didn't have you pegged as one of those. Do you buy into the supernatural aspect of Bigfoot? Or did I read too much into your comment about like us, but not us, therefore close to the concept of a deity? Chimps are like us, but not us, but not close to a deity in concept. Not really sure where you're going with that one...

At age 11, I knew that a serious scientific case existed for sasquatch. If you don't yet...well, ask yourself how you would respond to people who don't know something now that you knew at age 11. Yeah. We're human too; and when we see ignorance coming on as intelligence - the religion of hyper-empiricism that dominates the lamestream attitude toward this topic - we react to it. Not too kindly.

I would just like you to react to my question above if you would be so kind.

[Guest DWA]

I answered it. Go back and read my answer again.

It's like a 45 year long sideshow that is hard to stop watching once you buy your ticket. I often wish I had never looked under the hood and just left BF as some interesting figure from my childhood.

Well if you did what WSA, Dr. Meldrum, Dr. Bindernagel, Dr. Krantz, Dr. Mionczynski, Dr. Swindler, Dr. Hadj-Chikh, Dr. Sprague, Dr. Nekaris, Dr. Markotic, Dr. ****, and I, among others, have done, you would be fascinated and excited by the topic. In a positive (and informed) way. The truth really does set you free. I find the sideshows the epitome of boring. The fun is all I care about.

(The last Dr. goes by the name of Carleton. His last name appears a Flag Word on this site.)

[WSA]

Many things appear supernatural that are merely misunderstood. My position is this is one of those, and perhaps the most acute case of it we've seen in a long, long while, if ever. Chimps have absolutely nothing to do with it as I think they have no superior knowledge of us, and our understanding of them is pretty comprehensive as well. This ain't that. I'm not "going" anywhere with this Dmaker. It is a thought to hold or reject, your choice.

One concept you might want to entertain though is the idea that we've never encountered a species that has the capacity to study us as diligently (or even more diligently) than we study it, AND which apparently has the mental agility to modify their activity quicker and more profoundly than we can modify ours? Ever heard the joke about beef tongue? The only food you taste that tastes you back? Exactly.

Edited April 2, 2013 by WSA