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

[dmaker]

^^ I'm sorry, are you actually claiming that you did not imply that there was a fraud happening or that they were incompetent and mistaken?  

[Guest DWA]

^^ I'm sorry, are you actually claiming that you did not imply that there was a fraud happening or that they were incompetent and mistaken?  

A fraud could have happened.  More likely they were just mistaken.  But oh, I don't rule anything out.  Keep that mind open.

 

BTW, haggling over this one case on which Saskeptic is basing his conclusion on very insufficient evidence doesn't say anything about the rest of the sasquatch evidence, one way or the other.  Just making a point about grasping at straws vs. grasping the larger question.

 

Not my fault if, from the appearance of things and someone do correct me if I'm wrong, this looks as if the scientists involved botched it up so badly that yes, one can't help but put deliberate misfeasance into the discussion.

 

NINE witnesses; a 17-inch footprint...and you're basing your conclusions on hair?  That the witnesses could be counted on to correctly ID were it bison, but they believed was something else?

 

Oh.

 

OK.

Edited June 20, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

"Where'd I say that?  Can I see your translator again?  Sanskrit has some phrases that are different from English."

First of all, stop using a Sanskrit translator. Might solve your problem.

 

And here you go:

 

"I'd also like to know the relative bush experience of those witnesses and the vitamin-D-challenged analysts who said "bison hair."

 

 

"Or - and you know this was it - the 'matches' were a mistaken analysis , or somebody saying to somebody, derail this nonsense.  Tell 'em this is bison."  

 

Lying or mistaken. Like I said. Those are your words from your responses...

Edited June 20, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

And just responded, above you.

[dmaker]

"BTW, haggling over this one case on which Saskeptic is basing his conclusion on very insufficient evidence doesn't say anything about the rest, one way or the other."

 

Sure, you are right. One example does not say anything about all the rest. But, and this is my point in this, it does say a ton about your ability to accept a fact that does not fit with your worldview. 

[Guest DWA]

DWA, do you realize that you are doing the same thing that skeptics do and that you chide us for all the time? I say BF eye witnesses are either lying or mistaken.  Well, some scientists examined some BF evidence and reported back that is, in fact, a sample from a bison, not a Bigfoot.

 

Your response?   lying or mistaken.

And responding in greater depth:  apples and Ganymede.

 

You say that witnesses are either lying or mistaken ...and give no evidence that would lead one to believe either except that it happens.  Which isn't evidence.

 

I say that, in this case, whoever did follow-up did such inadequate follow-up that it's their fault that a reasonable person with an open mind could consider them either mistakenly or willfully wrong.  Not my problem.

"BTW, haggling over this one case on which Saskeptic is basing his conclusion on very insufficient evidence doesn't say anything about the rest, one way or the other."

 

Sure, you are right. One example does not say anything about all the rest. But, and this is my point in this, it does say a ton about your ability to accept a fact that does not fit with your worldview. 

No, actually, more about yours.   MUCH more.

 

See, I am introducing possibilities.  You KNOW who was wrong and who was right.

 

Um...no you don't.

[dmaker]

That's funny. I offer my opinion on eye witness reports and offer multiple alternatives to actually seeing a BF. You say I then give no evidence, just my opinion. And then you cite this recent example where you give your OPINION on the scientific analysis and offer no evidence for that opinion. OR do you have evidence that the analysis was fraudulent or incorrect? Or is that merely your opinion?  

[Guest DWA]

That's funny. I offer my opinion on eye witness reports and offer multiple alternatives to actually seeing a BF. You say I then give no evidence, just my opinion. And then you cite this recent example where you give your OPINION on the scientific analysis and offer no evidence for that opinion. OR do you have evidence that the analysis was fraudulent or incorrect? Or is that merely your opinion?  

I HAVE PLENTY!  OK, you really aren't paying attention.

 

No followup on what the witnesses saw.  No followup on the track.  Just bison results on hair that I have on good authority (Saskeptic) that these people knew wasn't bison.  You have no hunches from that?  Oh. OK.  That is EVIDENCE, b's and g's, that proper scientific procedure was not followed here.  If you think it was, well, I see my problem with your chosen scientists.

 

When you tell me somebody was lying or mistaken and can offer no evidence such as I just did, let's just say I'm skeptical about that finding.

[Guest Cervelo]

Saskeptic...No, I think you misunderstand my misunderstanding. :-) Your reply confirmed for me that you view one body of evidence (anecdotal) as not of too much use to inform the other (absolute proof). I would put that in the "obvious" column in my understanding of you, but wanted to just remind ourselves of it. Your views of what is significant/useful/worth pursuing just don't comport with mine, nor do they have to, but it is helpful to appreciate we are not exactly pursuing the same things in our efforts. I'm seeing that more and more clearly, which is helpful too.

If I had to say why, I'd imagine it is because you are trained to pursue one aspect, and I the other. I am in the anecdotal business, after all. One is not better or worse than the other, really, just a different perspective and emphasis, and the two can lead you to different outcomes. Your sine qua non is confirmation of the species to science, as I would naturally expect. I attach less significance to that than you, as do many here, I presuppose. That difference in perspective may have been a casualty here in all the rock throwing from both "sides."

."

If you do have a foot planted in both areas of evidence, and the anecdotal has compelled you to look harder for confirmation (and I believe it has, as you've said before), good on you.

Well at least someone gets it!!!

I had a stalking incident at 17 that I'll go to my grave saying it was on two feet and no man....but that doesn't prove anything or make Bigfoot real.

I've posted vids that people see Bigfoot within 10 feet of me, no Bigfoot was there.

Númerous experiences in my lifetime that for many here would be "Bigfoot"....but that's not the case.

There's personal confirmation and what's required by science to declare a new species...and so far the evidence doesn't provide anymore proof than there is for dragons.

[Guest DWA]

What WSA is saying, though (and I agree with every word of it) is:

 

There is a lot more evidence for sasquatch than there is for dragons.

[Guest Cervelo]

No I don't think he did....and no there's not

[Guest DWA]

Well, I think he did to the first and an unequivocal yes to the second.  Unless you are digging up that dragon evidence for me.

[Guest Cervelo]

Didn't see where he said anything about dragons, maybe you could provide the quote where he brings up dragons?

Never said they were real...maybe you should take a break your comprehension skills seem to be slipping

[Guest DWA]

He didn't.  You did, and I corrected you.  While we're on skills. 

[WSA]

 

Saskeptic...No, I think you misunderstand my misunderstanding. :-) Your reply confirmed for me that you view one body of evidence (anecdotal) as not of too much use to inform the other (absolute proof). I would put that in the "obvious" column in my understanding of you, but wanted to just remind ourselves of it. Your views of what is significant/useful/worth pursuing just don't comport with mine, nor do they have to, but it is helpful to appreciate we are not exactly pursuing the same things in our efforts. I'm seeing that more and more clearly, which is helpful too.

If I had to say why, I'd imagine it is because you are trained to pursue one aspect, and I the other. I am in the anecdotal business, after all. One is not better or worse than the other, really, just a different perspective and emphasis, and the two can lead you to different outcomes. Your sine qua non is confirmation of the species to science, as I would naturally expect. I attach less significance to that than you, as do many here, I presuppose. That difference in perspective may have been a casualty here in all the rock throwing from both "sides."

."

If you do have a foot planted in both areas of evidence, and the anecdotal has compelled you to look harder for confirmation (and I believe it has, as you've said before), good on you.

Well at least someone gets it!!!

I had a stalking incident at 17 that I'll go to my grave saying it was on two feet and no man....but that doesn't prove anything or make Bigfoot real.

I've posted vids that people see Bigfoot within 10 feet of me, no Bigfoot was there.

Númerous experiences in my lifetime that for many here would be "Bigfoot"....but that's not the case.

There's personal confirmation and what's required by science to declare a new species...and so far the evidence doesn't provide anymore proof than there is for dragons.

 

Sort of like my "encounters" as well....over 30 years ago in N. Fairfax Cty. VA. near the Loudon Cty line, along the Potomac. Some buds and I pulled into a field after a long night working in the kitchen.  Yes, we had us some beers with us, but had barely opened one when VERY heavy tramping was heard coming towards us. We were all country boys, and knew what a cow or a horse sounds like. This was no fenced field. Bipedal, no doubt about it, coming through some jimmy-bad briars and brush, without a light showing. When I hushed everyone, it stopped. Then started again when we began to talk. We got seriously spooked and left quickly. A few months later, I was doing some night hiking with a friend not far from there, when a loud Splash! Ker-PLUNK hit the river eddy we were standing beside. WHAAAAA??!! it just did not compute. We told ourselves it was a beaver, sounding, but it sounded more like a very large rock hitting the river, not the slap of a tail. We were not under any cliffs or rock overhangs, pretty broad,, rolling,  wooden terrain. This in a very remote area where we had never seen anyone. Only crazy kids like us would have been out there at that time of night, and we knew the whole area quite well. (It has since been purchased by the Nature Conservancy, and some of it is now a Regional Park...houses everywhere close to it now, etc.)  

 

What were these things? I'm not sure, so that is why my profile reads "don't know" under possible encounters. To tell you the truth, the possibility of a BF never entered my mind then. It wasn't until I started to dig into the sightings database. Yup, not far from there, a "couldn't have made up these facts" ,Class A sighting.