Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

dmaker

You ignore the evidence, or you do not adequately explain it.

"...what we do is compare it to the numerous examples of faked evidence." Whaaaaat? Oh, that's scientific.

The remainder of your post puts the lie to your first three sentences. Oh, no you don't. Because you would be able to say things that prove those three sentences are true if you did.

How many times have I said to you that the fakes have no relation whatever to the 'live' evidence? How many times that you are engaging in the

No proof on my schedule = no evidence fallacy ?

How many times that...

Oh no you don't. Don't run that one by me.

Why do the fakes have no relation to the live evidence in your world? It seems to me that they have every relevance. Every time the boy cries wolf is one less reason to take this whole thing seriously. Just because ALL of the boy's cries have yet to be proven fake, does not take away from the fact that this field is rife with fakery. In fact the fakery to proven evidence scale is currently measured at: Fake: more than one; Real: ZERO. So in your world science should ignore the fakes and investigate, the what? How do you cull the real from the fakes? Especially when it comes to eye witness reports? With a long litany of fakes, how does one take this field seriously?

Was't last year and the year before and the yeary before, declared The Year of the Sasaquatch? So which year,exactly,will be the year of the Sasquatch? Footers seem to be incredibly wrong at predicting that. I will give you a prediction you can take to the bank: 2013 - 2050: NOT The Year of the Sasquatch. My money? , on history and my prediction.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

DWA, you say constantly that skeptics ignore evidence. But so do you proponents. You ignore the fact that there is no fossil record for Bigfoot to be found anywhere in North America. Yet we have fossil record of almost every other animal , including the smallest little butterfly. You ignore the fact that an animal of this size and this distribution can somehow leave absolutely no trace of it's presence. A feat that no other 800 lb animal has managed to do. We have plenty of evidence of bears, and moose and bison, and name your large mammal, but none at all for Bigfoot. Nothing. Not a single piece of evidence for an 800 lb primate running around North America in , depending on your school of thought, pretty impressive numbers. In fact, living in our very back yards according to many folks. Yet still, somehow, leaving no trace whatsoever of their passing. No other animal does that. No other animal exists and leaves nothing behind. Not a one. Except for Bigfoot.

Now who is ignoring facts and evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, see, in the REAL world we both live in the fakes are irrelevant.  But I've told you why, time and again here.

 

Gotta learn to suss trash from treasure in this field.  The vast majority is trash...and irrelevant.  That's what happens when science abdicates a field to amateurs.

 

(Hint:  The DWA Attention Spectrum can help with this.  Look where 99% of the posts on a website are.  That's the trash.)

 

(Yes.  The "No Evidence" OP is trash.  That thread should just never have happened.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

So if the vast majority of evidence is trash, why should science feel compelled to investigate?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientists who are paying attention are investigating the 'live' evidence, not the trash.

 

If your wife's wedding ring is in the trash, does the whole thing go to the landfill?

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

 

 

The vast majority of posts here are opinion not backed up by facts. There are members here who post large mini-treatise on the "known" behaviour and distribution of Bigfoots. These are nothing more than opinions at this point based on unproven facts. Bigfoot is not a proven fact, so how is it that really any comments around said animal do not fall into opinion or conjecture really?

 

1) What's a leprechaun known to keep?

 

A) Fish

B ) Jelly Donuts

C) Gold

 

2) What does a unicorn have on the top of it's head?

 

A) Horn

B )Third eye

C) Tail

 

3) A Troll lives where?

 

A) In a cave

B ) Under a bridge

C) In a house

 

Sasquatch is tall, hairy, walks on two legs, stinks, throws objects, and growls, shrieks and whistles.

 

We know this all the way back to Indian Lore.

Thank-you for proving my point.

Perhaps you need a crash course in what is a fact, and what is not. At BF claimed track is not, in fact, a BF track. Why? Because BF is not a fact. The claim that this is a BF track remains and unproven opinion in the absence of an actual Bigfoot. This nuance is not that subtle, so I can only assume that you understand what I mean. Arguments that start with the premise that BF is real, are faulty.

Eye witness reports are facts of nothing more than someone reporting seeing something. And even that precludes those that are just flat out lying. To take the report as fact is an error. It is simply someone's opinion that this track or that track was made by a BF. It is only factual in the sense that it is a track of something. More often than not a bear or some other common animal.

 

 

My point was to prove your point..........to a point. :o

 

In other words, even with myths, known attributes are given to them based on ancestral lore.

 

Stories are not fact...........tracks on the other hand ARE fact. The question then becomes WHAT made them. Some tracks are easily dismissed, and others not so much.

 

But regardless........just because Bigfoot is not proven to exist doesn't make all tracks not a fact. The premise is silly.

 

To put it into perspective:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saola

 

Are you saying that all of the tracks (for centuries) the Saola made before the 1992 "discovery" were not a fact?

 

I understand where you are coming from, we need solid proof to be sure. But as you and I debated before.........the tracks lead to the animal (if real) and not the other way around. You totally dismiss all tracks simply because the animal has not been discovered by science. Fine. But if your mission is to prove to science that the animal is in fact a reality? You don't have that luxury. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Fair enough stinky. How many would be enough? I guess the answer to that would be enough to investigate the claim and bring forward proof. To date that number is zero. Still to this day not one of the phds involved in BF research have managed to prove the creature's existence. Not a single one. So from a numbers point of view, perhaps we need more phds involved in BF research? Maybe then we will have proof? Maybe we need ten? Twenty? Or maybe just one that could bring forth the proof that is lacking? But in the meantime, it's nice to have a couple at least..

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stories may not be bigfoot.  But the stories are fact; they exist, and remain unexplained.



And how many scientists are actually paying attetion to this again?

You didn't answer my question; no surprise there.

 

But as I do with every post, I answer yours:

 

One is enough.  I don't care about any that aren't, and it wouldn't matter how many there were.  Ignorance is ignorance, multiply it however many times you will.



DWA, you say constantly that skeptics ignore evidence. But so do you proponents. You ignore the fact that there is no fossil record for Bigfoot to be found anywhere in North America. Yet we have fossil record of almost every other animal , including the smallest little butterfly. You ignore the fact that an animal of this size and this distribution can somehow leave absolutely no trace of it's presence. A feat that no other 800 lb animal has managed to do. We have plenty of evidence of bears, and moose and bison, and name your large mammal, but none at all for Bigfoot. Nothing. Not a single piece of evidence for an 800 lb primate running around North America in , depending on your school of thought, pretty impressive numbers. In fact, living in our very back yards according to many folks. Yet still, somehow, leaving no trace whatsoever of their passing. No other animal does that. No other animal exists and leaves nothing behind. Not a one. Except for Bigfoot.

Now who is ignoring facts and evidence?

Oh, um, you.  You could have restricted the question to the last line and saved a lot of trouble.

 

I haven't ignored the fossil-evidence fact; I have explained to you, over and over and over, that it isn't even relevant. 

 

I have also told you over and over again that most species have no identified fossil ancestors.

 

I have also told you that sasquatch leave every kind of trace of their passing that everything else does.

 

You just tend to ignore people talking to you; facts; and evidence.

 

The big difference between you and me right now is that I'm doing something that I consider fun because all the evidence is on my side and confirmation doesn't look as if it will be too long in coming.

 

You?

 

Wow.  Wish I knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Fair enough stinky. How many would be enough? I guess the answer to that would be enough to investigate the claim and bring forward proof. To date that number is zero. Still to this day not one of the phds involved in BF research have managed to prove the creature's existence. Not a single one. So from a numbers point of view, perhaps we need more phds involved in BF research? Maybe then we will have proof? Maybe we need ten? Twenty? Or maybe just one that could bring forth the proof that is lacking? But in the meantime, it's nice to have a couple at least..

 

How about the "researchers" that are in the field right now in their spare time pack a gun instead of a camera? How many times has Bobo seen a Squatch? Is he your guy to drag one in and prove it to you?

 

This is why I like Skeptics........ Dmaker, you guys challenge the community at large.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

We have no lack of bear fossils. We have no lack of bear hair left in traps. We have no lack of evidence for every species that exists on this continent. Except, of course, for Bigfoot. The magic monkey gets a pass some how when it comes to leaving evidence of it's passing. That strikes me as odd, considering it's a pretty large predatory mammal. Others that fit that description, we have no lack of evidence. We have bear tracks, bear hair, bear skat, you name it. But nothing for Bigfoot . Nothing at all. But you, and your camp, will say we are simply not looking. Ok, well we have people here on this forum that claim these creatures live in their backyards. We have others that claim they hunt these creatures in controlled areas where they know they habitute...yet, still..nothing. Nothing. Nothing tangible has ever been produced, ever. Yes, doubt of the existence does seem odd...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

Every time the boy cries wolf is one less reason to take this whole thing seriously.

 

 

I hope you are not saying that if one person of a particular group whether they be location related - race related - lifestyle related or by any other means should all be condemned because of the actions of a few ... or the one. That.s just plain wrong in my view. I agree that the Bigfoot field is full of hoaxers claiming to have personal relationships with their Sasquatch groups, personal knowledge on how to find them, or people who think every noise in the dark is Sasquatch related, but there are actual Sasquatch researchers who are just as quick to point out a suspected hoax as they are to embrace evidence that has held up to their standards of investigation and testing. I think I saw BoBo's name mentioned somewhere and most Sasquatch researchers will probably tell you that BoBo doesn't speak for them, but rather only for himself. Each piece of evidence should be tested in my view.

 there is far more evidence that BF is a hoax, than there is otherwise.

 

 

I think a more accurate statement would be that there are far more cases of BF hoaxing than there is evidence that has held up to scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...