How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[WSA]

Golfers? Here ya go....

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=35352

 

One indicator of credibility? They finished the round.

[Guest DWA]

No ape man is gonna make me burn a greens fee.

 

I like the holding-clubs-like-baseball-bats, something one doesn't exactly do with a squirrel.

[Guest Llawgoch]

I'm arguing for the case to be closed.

 

Which it isn't when all these false positives are being alleged; none of them proven; and much more reason to believe the witnesses than not to.

 

(Much more than there is to believe, say, ivorybill witnesses, driven hard by multiple incentives to mistake a common species for a similar extinct one.  What similar, known species are bigfoot sighters seeing, hmmmm?  if you have read reports you know:  None.)

 

 

Will you please outline what it will take to prove witness statements false.  Forget everything else.  What would have to be done to prove to you that all the anonymous eyewitness reports you put such faith in are, in fact, false?

[Guest DWA]

What do you think it would take?  Do you somehow think that proposition is held to a lower standard of proof?

 

For each report, I want to see an analysis that convinces me that in the case of that report, the witness did not see x, but saw y.

 

This is so far from an unreasonable thing to ask that I'm shocked anyone would.

 

There are only two ways to make this go away (as so many of you seem to be urgently wishing it would):

 

1.  The proponents provide what science certifies as proof that they are right.

 

2.  The skeptics prove so much of the evidence a false positive that it becomes ridiculous to believe the remainder contains positive proof.

 

Anyone who can't handle that can just zip lip and walk away until proof is obtained.  Sorry, the world ain't running on your schedule.

 

Welcome to skepticism. 

 

I'm a skeptic.

 

And I'm highly skeptical that the random concatenation of mental disease, vision malfunction, lying, pranking and honest misidentification (no way that's happening) in which you put so much faith is actually occurring.

 

[Guest DWA]

Not to mention meshing perfectly to provide the absolute picture of what we'd expect from an omnivorous temperate zone wild hominoid.  Something of which 99.9% of those encountering one know little if anything.

 

Yeah.  That's happening.  Shoooooooooooooooooooooooooore it is.

 

Prove it.  That's one outlandish claim.

Edited June 13, 2013 by DWA

[Guest Llawgoch]

What do you think it would take?  Do you somehow think that proposition is held to a lower standard of proof?

 

For each report, I want to see an analysis that convinces me that in the case of that report, the witness did not see x, but saw y.

 

This is so far from an unreasonable thing to ask that I'm shocked anyone would.

 

There are only two ways to make this go away (as so many of you seem to be urgently wishing it would):

 

1.  The proponents provide what science certifies as proof that they are right.

 

2.  The skeptics prove so much of the evidence a false positive that it becomes ridiculous to believe the remainder contains positive proof.

 

Anyone who can't handle that can just zip lip and walk away until proof is obtained.  Sorry, the world ain't running on your schedule.

 

Welcome to skepticism. 

 

I'm a skeptic.

 

And I'm highly skeptical that the random concatenation of mental disease, vision malfunction, lying, pranking and honest misidentification (no way that's happening) in which you put so much faith is actually occurring.

 

 

How can I provide an analysis proving that someone who hasn't made their name public didn't see what they claimed to see at an undisclosed location on an unconfirmed date?

 

Actually, how can I prove that someone who has made their name public didn't see what they claimed to see on a disclosed location on a specific date?  

 

This is not a rhetorical question.  I want you to tell me how I can disprove it, given that there was nobody else around.

Not to mention meshing perfectly to provide the absolute picture of what we'd expect from an omnivorous temperate zone wild hominoid.  Something of which 99.9% of those encountering one know little if anything.

 

Yeah.  That's happening.  Shoooooooooooooooooooooooooore it is.

 

Prove it.  That's one outlandish claim.

 

Or alternatively Bigfoot hoaxers read about Bigfoot before hoaxing, reproduce what they've heard then say they knew nothing of it.  That's what I would do, if I wanted to hoax a Bigfoot report.  That's not so outlandish.

 

 

(Of course only some say they know nothing of it.  99.9% is  a plucked out of the air number with nothing backing it up.)  

Edited June 13, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Cotter]

I would like to see 1 case where multiple (2) people hallucinated the same exact thing for several hours, including them both seeing in broad daylight the exact same thing at close range (100 feet or less).

That would make me question 1 encounter I've been allowed to pick apart.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

How can I provide an analysis proving that someone who hasn't made their name public didn't see what they claimed to see at an undisclosed location on an unconfirmed date?

 

Actually, how can I prove that someone who has made their name public didn't see what they claimed to see on a disclosed location on a specific date?  

 

This is not a rhetorical question.  I want you to tell me how I can disprove it, given that there was nobody else around.

 

Or alternatively Bigfoot hoaxers read about Bigfoot before hoaxing, reproduce what they've heard then say they knew nothing of it.  That's what I would do, if I wanted to hoax a Bigfoot report.  That's not so outlandish.

 

That accounts for every single report?  That's a pretty outlandish claim too.  Would you do it?  I know I wouldn't.  Would anyone either of us know?  Would anyone any of them know?

 

Because someone might, you want to blanket toss all of them because that is proof all of them did?

 

If craziness exists, did I just prove you're crazy?

 

You can have that kind of faith.  I sure don't.

 

If you can't disprove all, or even a single one, of the reports, then you have no way of telling me these people didn't see what they say they did, right?

 

So why would I have any reason to believe your claim that none of them saw what they say they did?

[Cotter]

Again, someone must be able to point me to a case where multiple witnesses had the exact same hallucination lasting 2 or more hours, right?

 

Using the ol' razor on this one, what's more likely?

[Guest DWA]

Again, someone must be able to point me to a case where multiple witnesses had the exact same hallucination lasting 2 or more hours, right?

 

Using the ol' razor on this one, what's more likely?

Wouldn't hold my breath on that.

 

Occam, applied to the evidence, says:  these people saw what they say they did.  The reports are consistent; many involve multiple witnesses; the physical evidence such as tracks matches up well with what people are seeing, in some cases actually making the tracks.

 

Any 'explanation' of all the evidence as a false positive not only has to make multiple assumptions for every possible stated cause, but has to assume the animal's existence and the continuing lack of scientific confirmation implausible, something there is absolutely no reason to do.

[Guest Llawgoch]

That accounts for every single report?  That's a pretty outlandish claim too.  Would you do it?  I know I wouldn't.  Would anyone either of us know?  Would anyone any of them know?

 

 

Because someone might, you want to blanket toss all of them because that is proof all of them did?

 

If craziness exists, did I just prove you're crazy?

 

You can have that kind of faith.  I sure don't.

 

If you can't disprove all, or even a single one, of the reports, then you have no way of telling me these people didn't see what they say they did, right?

 

So why would I have any reason to believe your claim that none of them saw what they say they did?

 

 

I didn't say anything accounts for anything.  I offered an alternative to your proposition. 

 

I shouldn't have, because of course you seized on that rather than actually telling me what could hypothetically be done to disprove eyewitness reports to your satisfaction.  I am confident you will continue to avoid answering this.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

Actually, ^^^avoidance going on right there.

 

You obviously don't think anything can be done.  In most cases, I don't think so either.  But that isn't because they are "unfalsifiable."  It's simply because skeptics didn't do the work when they could have.

 

The reports stand, unaddressed.  You give me two options:  just consider them all bunk because you say so...or consider them unaddressed.

 

I pick the latter.  You lack a good reason why I shouldn't.

 

You don't have an argument that will make this go away nice and neat for you.  It's best just to admit that, and await the proof, whenever that happens.

[Cotter]

@Llawgoch:

I offered a scenario where I was asking that someone please provide a case where a hallucination lasted several hours for several people where they saw the same thing.

 

I would take that into serious consideration as an explanation for the particular encounter I am referring.

 

That would be 1 way to begin to disprove the encounter, no?

[Guest DWA]

^^^[crickets]...Cotter, I sense avoidance.

[Guest DWA]

 

I didn't say anything accounts for anything.  I offered an alternative to your proposition. 

 

I shouldn't have, because of course you seized on that rather than actually telling me what could hypothetically be done to disprove eyewitness reports to your satisfaction.  I am confident you will continue to avoid answering this.

 Because [crickets] bore me, let's play with this.  Scoffermarkers abound.

 

First, the hotheaded emotional words ("seized"). 

 

Second, you want me to "actually" tell you what could "hypothetically" be done.  Look, if you don't know how to prove that someone reporting x actually saw y, I'm not sure I can help you.  Safety tip, though:  "actually" prove that the person "actually" saw y.  Don't "hypothetically" do anything.  

 

Furthermore:  my satisfaction is not important.  I am not The Sasquatch Reality Board.  What did the person see?  Ascertain that.

 

It's a scoffermarker par ex when somebody gets all hypothetical and and sets one up as The Sasquatch Reality Board.  I am not the one you are arguing with.  Meldrum and Bindernagel are.  How would you convince them you are right?

 

Finally (yes, the word is "abound" when it takes longer than the post to ID all the scoffermarkers):  don't assess any points against someone for "failing" to answer an irrelevant question.  I have said just what you need to do.  Scoffers beg off when they are asked to actually do something.  Red flag that they haven't done their homework.

 

Come on.  I am not arguing with you.  But if you had an argument, I might.