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

[Guest DWA]

And the Ultimo Ultimate Avoid:

 

My question:

 

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?

 

Llawgoch's answer:

 

[crickets]

 

[dmaker]

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.

We expect these hominoids to have glowing eyes, telepathy,invisibility cloaks, speak multiple languages and hop dimensions? Or is it just the traits that help your argument that count?

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.

Fine, await something that will never happen. In the meantime, there is no such thing as a bigfoot.

Anecdotal reports do not prove anything, nor do they disprove anything.

To Bindernagel and Meldrum: Got Monkey?

[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.

We expect these hominoids to have glowing eyes, telepathy,invisibility cloaks, speak multiple languages and hop dimensions? Or is it just the traits that help your argument that count?

If you insist on listening to the fringe and failing to purchase BS-detection software, um, OK.  Ignoring woo-woo stuff is what sensible people do.

 

You think I'm right, don't you.  That shouldn't be scary.

 

 

 

Fine, await something that will never happen. In the meantime, there is no such thing as a bigfoot.

Anecdotal reports do not prove anything, nor do they disprove anything.

To Bindernagel and Meldrum: Got Monkey?

 

Nostradamus called.  He wants his crystal ball back.  And again with the confusion of evidence and proof.

 

Got a train to catch?  I don't got a train to catch.  You got a train to catch?

[Guest DWA]

And this is what happens to hard-core scoffers who just haven't prepared themselves by thinking about this:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38287

 

Those reports are legion.  They have given me many a chuckle.

 

There is no woo-woo like a scared-straight scoftic, I guess.   One wasn't enough for this one; it was way too much.

 

Read up, scoffers.  You are less prepared than you think you are.

[dmaker]

It's nice how you get to cherry pick stuff from the reports so that you can build this notion of people reporting a perfectly legitimate sounding primate. When, in fact, quite the opposite is actually happening. Quite a few reports also include stuff that no animal is capable of doing. But those get dismissed by you because they don't fit into your personal view of Bigfoot. But they are part of the myth,whether you want to accept it or not. They do destroy what little credibility might be there to begin with, I agree, but nonetheless they do get reported quite frequently. In fact a subset of this board vouch rather loudly for these traits in particular.

Also, sorry but that BFRO report you linked? What was the purpose of that? I didn't believe a word of it, and all it convinced me of is that you believe far, far too much of what you read on the Internet.

Edited June 14, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

http://www.sierrasiteproject.com/2013/04/sierras-evidence-thermal-footage-and.html

This footage and associated going ons had multiple witnesses and lasted at least one hour and thirty six minutes as time on the flir indicates. Actually it lasted much longer, but the camera shows that amount of time from the start to finish of the video, not including pauses.  It is not conclusive, as Bart states himself, but quite interesting if one doesnt dismiss it as an outright lie by the witnesses or as a hoax by whomever. I believe it had the viewers attention, and would certainly have had mine.

[Guest DWA]

It's nice how you get to cherry pick stuff from the reports so that you can build this notion of people reporting a perfectly legitimate sounding primate. When, in fact, quite the opposite is actually happening. Quite a few reports also include stuff that no animal is capable of doing. But those get dismissed by you because they don't fit into your personal view of Bigfoot. But they are part of the myth,whether you want to accept it or not. They do destroy what little credibility might be there to begin with, I agree, but nonetheless they do get reported quite frequently. In fact a subset of this board vouch rather loudly for these traits in particular.

Also, sorry but that BFRO report you linked? What was the purpose of that? I didn't believe a word of it, and all it convinced me of is that you believe far, far too much of what you read on the Internet.

That's not the way to behave on vacation, man!  One is supposed to be expansive, open to possibilities.  Come on.

 

So cheerless!  See, this is your problem.  Other than not thinking enough.  But both can be cured.

 

Here.  Read another one.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40935

 

Repeat.  I like to talk to people who have a, you know, information base.  You just like to call people you don't know deranged and liars.  Interesting perspective.

Edited June 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

My question:

 

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?

I have never claimed to be able to disprove a single alleged bigfoot encounter. 

 

The closest I have come is probably my assessment of the Johnson encounter for which I have postulated a combination of grouse hoots and some kind of anxiety attack as the root of the experience.  Even that, however, is merely me suggesting a possible scenario that does not involve a real bigfoot; I have no way of demonstrating the likelihood of that scenario.

 

You posing this question simply illustrates that you still don't understand critical thinking when it comes to anecdotal reports.  One more time: It's not that they can be disproven, it's that they also can't be proven.

 

"But science won't look into it!" you object.  Well, let's say I was so motivated by Dr. Johnson's story that I dug a little deeper and considered an expedition to the site where he claims his encounter.  Surely this must have occurred in a remote wilderness area that has had little or no biological inventory if there's an undocumented population of bigfoot there, right?  Ah, no: the location is Oregon Caves National Monument. I'd argue that there are few places on the planet that have received as much consistent biological, archaeological, geological, and cultural inventory as our National Parks.

 

Hmm. . . one guy's fantastic story versus the sum total of biological inventory at a National Park . . .

[Guest DWA]

Whoa.   WHOA.  While we are on critical thinking.

 

"Hmm. . . one guy's fantastic story versus the sum total of biological inventory at a National Park . . ."

 

Anyone who believes sasquatch reports will ever be tolerated by any biological inventory anywhere before the current societal attitude changes is way too trusting an individual.

 

And also didn't read the Johnson account.  But I digress.

 

We still don't know how to think critically about the anecdotal evidence, I see.  Well, not to hog more bandwidth but I've left tips all over BFF.

 

Yep, I'd say critical thinking is important, as my Red Friend Naish down there as well.  I just wish more did it here.

[Guest]

@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?

Hi Cotter.  No.  Even if we could provide 100 examples of two people spontaneously experiencing the same hallucination it would not disprove whatever encounter you're considering.  It would simply offer another plausible alternative. 

 

So you have in this encounter two people clearly seeing one or more bigfoots at close range over the course of several hours?  There's no chance of misidentification, as in both really saw bipedal, 5-fingered hands with nails, etc.?  Here is a list of possible explanations:

 

1) They saw a real bigfoot(s).

2) They lied.

3) They were victims of a hoax.

4) They think they saw the things they claimed that convinced them that they were looking at bigfoots, but they didn't really see those details - their brains filled them in from the bits and pieces of things they did observe. (Our eyes and brains and are surveillance tapes.)

5) The experienced a simultaneous bigfooty hallucination.

 

The problem with an anecdotal account is that you can neither prove nor disprove any of 1–5.

[Guest]

Anyone who believes sasquatch reports will ever be tolerated by any biological inventory anywhere before the current societal attitude changes is way too trusting an individual.

What the heck does this even mean?  What does "attitude" or "tolerance" have to do with biological inventory? The whole point of inventory is to build up a list of the species and other resources that occur in the area.  If any of the inventory work at Oregon Caves (or any other NPS lands) had ever produced so much as a bigfoot molar, we'd have our proof of bigfoot. Bone trumps attitude any day of the week, unless you're going to fall for the gov't coverup stuff.

[Guest DWA]

 

Anyone who believes sasquatch reports will ever be tolerated by any biological inventory anywhere before the current societal attitude changes is way too trusting an individual.

What the heck does this even mean?  What does "attitude" or "tolerance" have to do with biological inventory? The whole point of inventory is to build up a list of the species and other resources that occur in the area.  If any of the inventory work at Oregon Caves (or any other NPS lands) had ever produced so much as a bigfoot molar, we'd have our proof of bigfoot. Bone trumps attitude any day of the week, unless you're going to fall for the gov't coverup stuff.

 

Um, I think it means what it says.  But elephants in the room do tend to get treated this way.

 

This isn't about government coverup.  This is about that-isn't-real and you're-not-falling-for-that-nonsense.  Which on the societal level - particularly in workplaces that do things like biological inventories - make "government coverup" look like "secrets for sale, cheap, no questions asked".

 

Those first two sentences of your reply are not exactly critical thinking.

[WSA]

Saskeptic, do you place equal probabilities on all of your possible explanations? If you do, therein may be where your worldview/experiences start to diverge from mine. I don't approach these narrative accounts as a driver would approach a traffic light...prepared for one of only three possible events, each equally probable. You go through life without that discernment, you can really create some headaches for yourself and others. And truly, I don't believe you and many others here do that. Seeing all of y'all give the Sgt. Schultz treatment to the evidence is very entertaining to me and I don't ever tire of it. We got a good thing going here man!

[Guest DWA]

Funny indeed.  I'd have to cut off my arms and legs and voluntarily give up a third of my brain to live in a box like some folks.

[dmaker]

 

It's nice how you get to cherry pick stuff from the reports so that you can build this notion of people reporting a perfectly legitimate sounding primate. When, in fact, quite the opposite is actually happening. Quite a few reports also include stuff that no animal is capable of doing. But those get dismissed by you because they don't fit into your personal view of Bigfoot. But they are part of the myth,whether you want to accept it or not. They do destroy what little credibility might be there to begin with, I agree, but nonetheless they do get reported quite frequently. In fact a subset of this board vouch rather loudly for these traits in particular.

Also, sorry but that BFRO report you linked? What was the purpose of that? I didn't believe a word of it, and all it convinced me of is that you believe far, far too much of what you read on the Internet.

That's not the way to behave on vacation, man!  One is supposed to be expansive, open to possibilities.  Come on.

 

So cheerless!  See, this is your problem.  Other than not thinking enough.  But both can be cured.

 

Here.  Read another one.

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=40935

 

Repeat.  I like to talk to people who have a, you know, information base.  You just like to call people you don't know deranged and liars.  Interesting perspective.

 

I'm back from the vacation this morning. I had a wonderful week in the Sierras. My wife and I spent every day (other than two days of rain) hiking in the Desolation Wilderness. We hiked to several summits, including Mt.Tallac and Mt.Ralston, as well as just general backpacking the Desolation Wilderness area. The area is spectacular! This was my first alpine hiking experience ( we don't have mountains in south western ontario, we have the niagara escarpment), and I absolutely adored it!  No sign of Bigfoot though. A tree did crash somewhere near us one day and some sort of object landed near me while I was sitting on a rock near the summit of Mt.Ralston enjoying a protein bar. Neither one of these events did I attribute to Bigfoot though. The largest animal that we came across ( other than other HSS) was a marmot.  I have some breathaking pics from the mountain tops that I will share in another part of this forum if you're interested.  Oh, and just for Saskeptic because I know he is a bird enthusiast, we saw our first Stellar's Jay of our lives. It was puzzling at first. We are used to Blue Jays here in Ontario and this bird had us wondering what it was. It looked like a Blue Jay from the chest down, but had a black head and crown.  We looked it up later to figure out what it was

Saskeptic, do you place equal probabilities on all of your possible explanations? If you do, therein may be where your worldview/experiences start to diverge from mine. I don't approach these narrative accounts as a driver would approach a traffic light...prepared for one of only three possible events, each equally probable. You go through life without that discernment, you can really create some headaches for yourself and others. And truly, I don't believe you and many others here do that. Seeing all of y'all give the Sgt. Schultz treatment to the evidence is very entertaining to me and I don't ever tire of it. We got a good thing going here man!

I also enjoy your Gilligan approach to the evidence.

Edited June 14, 2013 by dmaker