Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[Guest]

^Alternately, it is the perfect explanation for why Skeptics routinely dismiss out of hand all the existing evidence FOR BF. They will buy ANY explanation at all, no matter how far-fetched, just to not acknowledge the evidence on proffer's validity.

[dmaker]

^^ Well that could be easily solved Mulder, by one single shred of physical evidence that can inarguably attributed to a Bigfoot. Just one. Just once.

IOW, ...got Monkey?

[Cotter]

 

You might want to start with reading this:

 

 

http://issuu.com/kristylabardee/docs/paranormal_gestalt_phenomena

 

fantastic reference, but since it is an actual scientific paper i doubt many here will read it.

 

i'll reference a line from the abstract:  "Cognitively biasing influences of preexisting psychological tendencies may predispose individuals to specific perceptual and cognitive errors during confrontation of real-world phenomena."

 

to paraphrase:  since you think you know where bigfoot lives and what bigfoot looks like, smells like, and behaves like, this bias in decision-making will cause you to see bigfoot anywhere these items appear. 

 

this is absolutely the most simple and comprehensive explanation for widespread bigfoot sightings. 

 

 

EDIT:  this also explains why everything and everywhere is "squatchy" on Finding Bigfoot

 

 

 

But that doesn't explain the folks that have had up close sightings that had never given BF 2 seconds worth of thought their entire lives.......

 

But it does explain the hypervigilance that is demonstrated routinely on this site by a small % of members.

[Guest wudewasa]

^Alternately, it is the perfect explanation for why Skeptics routinely dismiss out of hand all the existing evidence FOR BF. They will buy ANY explanation at all, no matter how far-fetched, just to not acknowledge the evidence on proffer's validity.

 

Specifically, what do you consider to be existing evidence?  

[Cotter]

What do YOU consider to be existing evidence?

 

I predict this is where the disconnect occurs.

[Guest wudewasa]

Cotter,

 

A body, disconnect or otherwise.  Now it's your turn on the evidence list.

[Guest LarryP]

 

But that doesn't explain the folks that have had up close sightings that had never given BF 2 seconds worth of thought their entire lives.......

 

 

Which is the case for the majority of reported sightings.

[Cotter]

Cotter,

 

A body, disconnect or otherwise.  Now it's your turn on the evidence list.

 

Well, I will say I interpret what you consider 'evidence' as 'proof'.  I mean how can a body NOT be proof?

 

The evidence on the other hand does indeed come up short of proof, but there is certainly no shortage of claims/experience to investigate that would constitue evidence.  (weights will vary obviously).

 

Native American Lore = Evidence

Individual Sightings = Evidence

Certain Trackways = Evidence

Police Calls and Investigations = Evidence

Unknown/Unidentified Hairs = Evidence

 

None of this adds up to proof, but certainly shouldn't be ignored, but rather followed up on, especially if one's own requirement that BF evidence MUST rise to the level of proof, with nothing in-between.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Guest]

wude, I would put a body in the proof category rather than evidence category. 

 

I think there is a lot of evidence, but it is all lacking.  And for every piece of valid evidence, there is a heap of hoaxes and misidentifications.  And the thing that I believe is the biggest detriment to any evidence is the rumors/stories that seem to grow around it as it's told from one person to the next.  It's like a game of telephone and the story gets so twisted.  Fact check a few original reports and compare them to the way they are often described here - you may be surprised.

[Guest DWA]

My problem with 'total skeptics' is that they're not really thinking about the implications of what they say.

 

Ask them what's up with this and you'll get the litany:  lies hoaxes misidentifications hallucinations pranks etc.

 

But is anyone familiar with any phenomenon for which thousands of totally random occurrences of fakery and mistake and mental concoction have been recorded that possesses this level of internal consistency?

 

No one is; because nothing like this exists that's been debunked.  Everything else like this that has happened in the history of science has been proven real.

 

One can do a guidebook sasquatch description fitting any North American mammal text - and more than one has been done - from all of these "random" occurrences.  That is way-beyond-lottery odds, if that is really what is going on.

 

It's simply common sense for a person with a rudimentary acquaintance with the laws of chance to think that there might be something to this; that we should find out, for certain, what that is; and that if the Big False Positive is the true answer, it is considerably more amazing than the simple primate.

 

Go ahead.  Test it yourself, Total Skeptic.  Get this.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Sasquatch-Field-Guide-Folding-Pocket/dp/193719695X

 

Then start reading up:  all the reports of the BFRO, NAWAC and John Green databases.

 

They're all describing that animal.

Edited May 16, 2013 by DWA
To bring into compliance

[dmaker]

You speak of the BFRO, NAWAC and others as if they are somehow proof positive of the validity of the BF claim. IMO, they are not. They are part of the problem. They perpetuate the myth. The BFRO and report database. NAWAC, again not providing anything concrete. Meldrum ought to be called to task for publishing that field guide. We're dealing with a speculative species and he's making money off a field guide? But if his name is on it, he knows Footers will buy it. Nothing all that interesting is happening in Footery. You like to dramatically set the stage with things like odds and probabilities. Add in some impressive sounding acronyms and a field guide by Meldrum. But at the end of it, you still got a big fat nothing. Nothing for years now. Nothing to come. Nothing, nothing, nothing. Ever. It's all smoke and mirror to keep the myth going. Of course the report database is going to keep piling up. And of course there will be consistencies. Without that the whole myth would start to crumble. And then who would buy Meldrums  pamphlet? Who would pay for expeditions? Who would donate tax free equipment to "researchers"?

The whole thing stinks. Always has stunk. It seems the stench might be at a bit of a peak right now with all the debacles every where you look such as Ketchum, Erickson, Dyer, etc. But even when those things come and go, if you are a footer, you had better like getting nothing, because that is what you get.

Edited May 16, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To bring into compliance

[Guest DWA]

Nothing about proof.  This isn't about proof until there is proof.

 

I care not one whit for what has been proven or not until the evidence has been addressed, and what is causing it PROVEN.  If nothing is in yet, that simply means that something needs to be brought in, now doesn't it?  There's nothing easier to explain* than why we don't have proof of sasquatch yet.  So the absence of proof is a non sequitur.  OK, at best it's:  gee, might want to get about proving that, eh?

 

Tossing this all off as random whatever simply shows a need to read up.  That's it.

 

 

*and boyoboy haven't I done *that* over and over here

[dmaker]

Yeah, or it could be the whole absence of evidence for the existence of BF, means BF does not exist. To which I know you will say but we have evidence, we have reports, we have tracks ( some of which you believe to be real), we have samples ( never mind that to date not a single sample has provided anything conclusive). But none of that evidence proves anything. Most of it is unacceptable as scientific proof and the rest of it is hoaxed by humans. At some point your rhetoric of proof is not here yet because we are not looking hard enough starts to lose its luster. It's just a shiny gloss job over the simple fact that proof is not here because there is no creature. Not any other reason. Wait as long as you want to DWA, it aint gonna come. But no harm in waiting. So have at at it.

[Guest DWA]

Well, glad I can rely on you.  And I can rely on you because....um, because....?

 

I'll take the scientists (who are paying attention.  Shoot, I look down my nose at the ones that aren't.  Why'd you major in science again...?).

 

You sound too much like somebody who has decided that the most negative wishful thinking possible will somehow make bigfoot real.  I'm doubtin' that.

 

 

But that doesn't explain the folks that have had up close sightings that had never given BF 2 seconds worth of thought their entire lives.......

 

 

Which is the case for the majority of reported sightings.

 

Exactly.

 

For "typical bigfoot eyewitness," one could not come up with a better descriptor than "either ignorant of the topic or hard-boiled scoftic."

[dmaker]

Well that is one key point ( of many obviously) where we greatly differ. You look down on scientists simply because they are not taking Bigfoot seriously.  I rather think they are doing their job properly--researching or discovering real animals. So look down your nose all you want, I think they can suffer your indignation ( where after all did you study science again?) if it means they are free to do their job without pandering to the haranguing of a group of people that believe in the magic monkey.  But hey you should be happy about that. The bubble will never be popped this way.  If science does not care, then no scientific expedition is ever going to drag in a corpeus bigis footus to vindicate you, but in the same token you can sit back and say "any day now..it's sure to come.." forever and ever. It's a nice comfy equilibrium. Reality and fantasy feeding into one another.