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

[Guest Llawgoch]

Science has already done what science does.  it's said "Ok, show me something".  Nobody can show them anything.  Some scientists are prepared to go out into the woods to be shown stuff, some aren't.  it doesn't matter.  Nobody can take Meldrum out and show him a Bigfoot.  Do you think that if they could, he would refuse to go?

 

It is not science's job to sit around in forests waiting for something that may or may not exist.  It is the job of science to explain things that are actually there.  If nobody can show science any more than the 'evidence' that is actually there, the best explanation is that is is a string of misidentifications and hoaxes.  if anyone can show science more than that, science will take notice.  If people with Bigfoots in their garden/'research areas' want to prove they exist, take Jeff Meldrum there and show him them.  He can bring his colleagues in.  If Jeff Meldrum told any primatologist in the USA that he could almost certainly show them a Bigfoot if they were prepared to put in some time, they'd believe him and they'd go.  But if you believe these exist, it's up to you to bring the evidence to science, or at least to take science to the evidence. Science is about explanation and gathering data.

 

What exactly do you want 'science' to do, and who exactly do you want to do it and pay for it?

Edited June 9, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

Science doesn't say "show me something."  Did science say "show me relativity?"

 

There are scientists who have done what science demands in this field.  That they don't have proof on one's personal schedule is irrelevant.

 

But knowing that would make being here a lot more fun, for sure.

Edited June 9, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

The opening of this show is a 911 call. This sounds like a real 911 call on a 'big (all black) guy 6-7 ft tall'. So now there are people pathologically reporting big hairy people calling 911, which is at least a misdomeaner if your faking it. I wonder how many 911 BF calls there are out there?

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ohiobigfoothunters/2013/02/13/ohio-bigfoot-hunters-radio-1

 

 

Still looking for 'proof' of pathological hoaxing going on out there.

 

The problem here is of the origin of the 911 call. Predictably, this type of thing floats around and people use it to bolster a case for Bigfoot. They pass it around and say stuff like: "Doesn't the caller sound real, real tension in his voice....."  They affirm it, without further ado.

 

Did this call actually take place? Who was the caller? What was the outcome (police report)?

 

On youtube, the call is said to originate from a house in Kitsap Peninsula in Washington state from the 1990's (another post says 1996.) One youtube posting said the call came from Bigfoot Field Researchers Org.

 

Here is Kitsap Peninsula:  http://www.visitkitsap.com/  Maybe I'm too skeptical, but this area doesn't seem advantageous as habitat for undetected giant, bipedal apes. I tried to chase down this report at BFRO, but couldn't find it listed, at least on the reports page. I navigated around but couldn't find a section on 911 calls at BFRO. Maybe someone here more familiar with BFRO can chase this down.

 

I do know that I heard this phone call played during the credit rolls of a fictional movie about Bigfoot. This implies one of two things. Either this phone call was a fiction made for the movie and was lifted from the movie, isolated and given a phony back story for Bigfoot community dissemination, Or the movie producers co-opted an actual 911 call for use in their movie on Bigfoot. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

Science doesn't say "show me something."  Did science say "show me relativity?"

 

There are scientists who have done what science demands in this field.  That they don't have proof on one's personal schedule is irrelevant.

 

But knowing that would make being here a lot more fun, for sure.

 

 

Relativity is an explanation of why the universe is as it is.  You cannot see or touch relativity; it's an intellectual construct created by humans.  It's not something that was there and we didn't know about but a theory of understanding of why and how things happen.  Like black holes are a theory to explain why we have certain data.

 

You can't seem to differentiate between explaining a phenomenon, and providing evidence that the phenomenon is there.

 

The only phenomenon as far as Bigfoot is concerned, is that people report it.  That's easily explainable without postulating an undiscovered ape.  Provide something that is more than a report, and science will rethink its explanation.

 

I note again that you refuse you say exactly what you think science should do, or who you think should do it.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

Oh, I can differentiate.

 

Problem is, too many people who come on here to say "no proof yet" 4,934, 434 different ways can't.

 

No skin offa mine.

 

If you aren't noting (and you aren't, as you say, again and again and again) that what science needs to do is confirm what the evidence of which you don't seem to know much means, well, I can't help you with that.

 

You join with the mainstream in making the universal bigfoot skeptic mistake of focusing on the trash in this field.  Sure, it's 99% of the bandwidth.  But that's par for the human course.  You mistake bandwidth for serious information.

 

I don't.

99% of the bandwidth once held the earth to be flat and the center of the universe, too.

 

Bigfoot-skeptics' True Belief in the infallibility of scientists I find touching.  Humorous, but touching.

[Guest Llawgoch]

None of that rant has any relevance to what I've said, and you still won't say what you want science to do, or who you think should do it.  

[Guest DWA]

And you won't get off a horse you have decided you won't get off until people acknowledge what you want them to think.

 

The relevance of what I say to what you say matters not to me.

 

I have certainly told both you and the scientific mainstream - pick your scientists, I don't care, this is your cag, not mine - what to do:

 

Challenge the findings of Krantz, Meldrum and Bindernagel.  Discount them on scientists' terms, using science...

 

...or just be quiet until the findings are in.

 

If that's not clear to you, I can't help it.

[Guest Llawgoch]

It's just meaningless.  I'm asking you what you think science should do that it isn't doing.  It doesn't matter what I do or think.

 

None of those findings you speak of have been published in any scientific journals.   Until they are, they have no relevance.  Do you want them to be?

 

I can only then presume that what you want 'science' to do is for Bindernagel and Meldrum to properly publish papers with all their Bigfoot findings in, so the scientific mainstream can consider them.  Is that the case?

 

If so, then Meldrum is a member here, I believe, so there's nothing to stop you calling on him openly to do it.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest DWA]

What is published in the journals published by an uninformed pseudo-consensus is really irrelevant.

 

Meldrum and Bindernagel's findings have been out there for the mainstream for years.  They 'challenge' them by ignoring them and not addressing them at all.  Not my fault.

 

You do know that if the mainstream considers it a priori impossible it will be impossible to get it published, right?  That's the weakness of 'peer review.'

 

I know what the evidence says.  What others think really doesn't matter unless they can show me I should think different.  So far, no fear of that.  Because that requires addressing the evidence ....and....[checks nails]....'we aren't really gonna get around to that, DWA,' is that what you're saying to me...?

 

(It is.)

[Guest Llawgoch]

No, I don't know that.  Because it's not true and you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of peer review if you think that it is  The reason Meldrum and Bindernagel don't publish is because they know, as scientists, that they don't have enough to publish with.  If you asked Meldrum that directly, I have no doubt he'd confirm it.  That's not to say he doesn't believe what he says, simply that he knows as a scientist the proper standards are nowhere near being met.

 

Other scientists don't comment on it because they know, by the very fact that Jeff Meldrum hasn't attempted to publish, that even he knows he doesn't have enough to really be worth their while considering.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Llawgoch

[Guest]

We delegate the proofs for such things to science.  Whenever they finally get on it is OK with me.

 

Bad idea. Science does not "believe", and without a complete body, even a skull or head could be dismissed. Hopefully they won't be found for humans to muck-up. I'm in the camp that wants them kept a secret, so, so far I'm happy with what 'science' has found out. Humans are not evolving socially or psycologically, in fact we are regressing on many fronts. Not sure how big a deal this would be anyway.

[Guest DWA]

No, I don't know that.  Because it's not true and you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of peer review if you think that it is  The reason Meldrum and Bindernagel don't publish is because they know, as scientists, that they don't have enough to publish with.  If you asked Meldrum that directly, I have no doubt he'd confirm it.  That's not to say he doesn't believe what he says, simply that he knows as a scientist the proper standards are nowhere near being met.

 

Other scientists don't comment on it because they know, by the very fact that Jeff Meldrum hasn't attempted to publish, that even he knows he doesn't have enough to really be worth their while considering.

.

Well, as I have said before, your faith in scientific infallibility is as touching as your ability to read scientists' minds is amazing.  Don't know what it is with you guys, but trust me, bigfoot won't become not-real because you keep coming here and saying it isn't, any more than scientists will make that true by ignoring those of their fraternity who are paying attention.

We delegate the proofs for such things to science.  Whenever they finally get on it is OK with me.

 

Bad idea. Science does not "believe", and without a complete body, even a skull or head could be dismissed. Hopefully they won't be found for humans to muck-up. I'm in the camp that wants them kept a secret, so, so far I'm happy with what 'science' has found out. Humans are not evolving socially or psycologically, in fact we are regressing on many fronts. Not sure how big a deal this would be anyway.

You can't change the way the world is, 'bad idea' or not.

 

If it were the proponents' responsibility to provide proof, then we'd all think bigfoot's real.  But it's not their responsibility, nor is any of them spending the necessary time in the field.

 

But I sincerely doubt that a skull or head would be totally dismissed.  Science has pulled off boners in its time, but that would be a doozy even for them.

 

But wait.  If you are of the keep-secret camp, well, the mainstream should be doing just fine by you (as you seem to think that it is).

[Guest]

^ Clearly you believe in bigfoot and have a problem with non believers

[Guest DWA]

Ah no, unlike what seems to be most who hang around here, I don't like that word "belief," and have to have things proven to me.  It's all evidence with me.  Unfortunately too many simply don't understand how that works.

 

When somebody can prove to me that a significant enough percentage of the sasquatch evidence is a false positive to make me doubt the rest...well, I'm not holding my breath.  In the meantime, if you love to "believe in" stuff, well, go ahead and swallow whole what people tell you.

 

I prefer to read; think; and judge for myself.

[Guest]

So you think we are all idiots for arriving at a different conclusion from you despite we also looked at all the evidence.