Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[WSA]

Here's the Mental Floss list, to which I say, "Meh." Most of these are merely April Fools stunts or practical jokes with a short lifespan.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/49674/14-greatest-hoaxes-all-time

I'm not seeing any I would accord the label of "Great."

Crop Circles? Maybe not.

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

Wikipedia writes it up as a hoax, although I'm not sure how definitive that is. We'll give it the benefit fo the doubt dmaker, thanks.

And here's a lesson on habituating fairies...you can't.

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

Edited May 15, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Minnesota Iceman...was that proven to be a hoax?

Nobody's ever resolved that one for absolute certain that I'm aware of.  From what I've seen:  likely hoax. 

 

I can't think of anything fishier than withdrawing the body of something unknown to science from public view...and never bringing it back.

[Guest]

 

Fringe proponents (which is what "believers" are) do it.

 

Like Matt Moneymaker, the founder of the BFRO?

[Guest DWA]

What about him?  He doesn't rate in what I think of the evidence, if that's what you mean.

 

Once again: I never blame the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it.

[Guest]

He's certainly not a fringe proponent.

[Guest DWA]

More accurately DWA, the backbone of the "total skeptic's" argument.  I am skeptical, but not "totally" skeptical.  I would consider total skeptics = fringe skeptics. 

 

* point taken on proponent.  Still trying to get the correct nomenclature down. 

 

Well, point taken right back atcha.

 

Occurs to me that 99% of the bigfoot discussion occurs between dueling fringes.

[dmaker]

" Once again: I never blame the animal's nonexistence on the people looking for it."

I find that to be a very odd statement. If people cannot find something, then at some point one has to entertain the idea that that failure is due to the thing not existing. Or is Sasquatch magically un-findable? For ever and ever and ever? Of course you would not blame the lack of a found specimen to the lack of existence of said creature. That would pretty much sink your boat.

" Occurs to me that 99% of the bigfoot discussion occurs between dueling fringes."

Well it's not like we have an actual Bigfoot to talk about..

Edited May 15, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

And one is blaming that eventually proven nonexistence on the people?  Nope.  You said it yourself:  the blame is on the thing not existing.  One blames it on the way things are.

 

What I see happening is people going "that guy's a loony so Bigfoot's not real."  Moneymaker to name one is a loony, at least appears that way at the moment.  But his lucid moments set up a database that is an evidence linchpin.  Nobody is going to make the case that Matt and Bobo are writing up those reports.

 

The discussion should center on the evidence, not on people's flights of fancy.  One doesn't get a Bigfoot to talk about until one sets up search protocols and follows the evidence.  NAWAC could tell the mainstream how to do this, if they, you know, need instruction.  Shoot, they're less than part time, and most of them have seen one.

Edited May 15, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

I wonder how much quality control goes into submissions to that database though.. It is not a database of facts. I would imagine just about anyone could get a story put up on there with very little effort and absolutely zero truth. I agree, follow the evidence, not flights of fancy. Problem is that database includes flights of fancy, probably quite a few of them.

How many confirmed Bigfoots has NAWAC produced to date?

Edited May 15, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

This list is much better. Many of these I'd never heard of, and you haven't either, so maybe that disqualifies them from the start. Still, many are funny as crap..

http://listverse.com/2013/03/11/10-great-hoaxes-of-the-twentieth-century/

[Guest DWA]

I wonder how much quality control goes into submissions to that database though.. It is not a database of facts. I would imagine just about anyone could get a story put up on there with very little effort and absolutely zero truth. I agree, follow the evidence, not flights of fancy. Problem is that database includes flights of fancy, probably quite a few of them.

How many confirmed Bigfoots has NAWAC produced to date?

That's like asking how many deer I've seen.

 

One can't take any report on that database as a flight of fancy.  I'm sure we can agree that no scientist can dismiss anything without evidence that it's dissmissable.  Having read pretty much all of them, they read just like garden-variety wildlife encounters, the only thing unusual being the kind of wildlife, and the reaction that particular kind engenders in a witness.  Can't bet on any single one.  But to bet against all of them as a mass is a fool's bet.  No gambler would do it.

[WSA]

Just as a matter of fact dmaker, I've never examined anyone while they were under oath who did not have some flight of fantasy in their testimony. It is "what we do." "Some" and "all" are terms that should not be interchanged in this context. The evidentiary rule of impeachment covers this situation quite handily. A witness may not be impeached with "collateral" matters. Think: "So you admit that on the night you say you saw the Sasquatch you were wearing WHITE socks, not BLACK ones as you've previously stated! ERGO!!!"

[dmaker]

Sure DWA. You like the BFRO database. It's far too fine a day to beat that long dead, old horse with you. I like WSA's hoax history talk much better. More fun

Ok, fine. So the fact that some are, undoubtedly complete fabrications, does nothing to taint the rest?

[Guest DWA]

Some people have disguised themselves as other people.  Do we presume everybody does that?

 

"Undoubtedly?"  Um, your proof, please.

 

(This has gotta be a cool field if you are a "skeptic."  You can make up out-your-butt stuff and spout it as fact.  It's only the proponents who have to prove stuff.)

Just as a matter of fact dmaker, I've never examined anyone while they were under oath who did not have some flight of fantasy in their testimony. It is "what we do." "Some" and "all" are terms that should not be interchanged in this context. The evidentiary rule of impeachment covers this situation quite handily. A witness may not be impeached with "collateral" matters. Think: "So you admit that on the night you say you saw the Sasquatch you were wearing WHITE socks, not BLACK ones as you've previously stated! ERGO!!!"

And right in that last sentence you have every single bit of bigfoot "debunking" done by "skeptics."

 

(All legitimate debunking in this field has been done by the proponents.)

Edited May 15, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

So I've come to some conclusions about this "one of the greatest hoaxes of all time" thing, as it relates to the PGF.

I've concluded two things, actually. IF this is a hoax, it is not "one" of the greatest, it is THE greatest hoax ever perpetrated. Secondly, it is one that has stood up the longest, and(O.K., three things)it is the sole example of any individual successfully hoaxing the existence of an entire species of animal.

Not a bad job of work for two cowboys, huh?