Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[Guest DWA]

Aiding the cause, m'friend.  Aiding the cause.  Compliment.  Thanks.

^^^^

 

Hope you don't mind but a piece of that wisdom just became my signature. Glad my post is stirring debate!

[Guest Darrell]

I dont know what the problem is. IMO the evidence you put forward doesnt yet make a case for me to 100% convince me that bigfoot exist. Why is that my problem. Im not trying to convert you, but proponents get so upset when you dont buy into their belief system.  I dont scoff, but I do thing most of what you put forth as evidence could and can be interpited to several different outcomes, not just bigfoot exists. Its so simple really, produce a type specimen. All dought goes away.

[Guest DWA]

I don't know what the problem is either.

 

The evidence is compelling; the proof not in.  Yet.

 

It's not true, at all, that "It's not what you believe, it's what you can prove."  It's what is real that matters, proof or no.

 

If sasquatch is real it is as real as Reese Witherspoon, as real as Barack Obama and Swiss cheese; and has been around a lot longer.  The evidence says that is how a betting man bets.  That that doesn't constitute proof to some people really  should not be a problem.  It's not even close to the point.

 

Science is not supposed to restrict itself to what is proven.  It is supposed to prove stuff.  It might get cracking on this.

 

This is my favorite rejoinder to the skeptics who seem to think no-proof-yet means no-proof-ever:

 

"I honestly wonder if a "skeptic" will be found starved to death in front of his breakfast one day, the walls scrawled with "It's not edible because I haven't eaten it." over and over."   Flashman2.0

Edited September 8, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

who thinks no proof ever?

I think it's more like, no proof after all these years makes some think it's less likely in the future. That's not outrageous.

[dmaker]

"The evidence is compelling; the proof not in. 

 

The evidence says that is how a betting man bets. " 

 

 You make statements like this as if they are fact. They are not. They are completely your opinion. I do not find the evidence compelling at all. I believe it points to people each and every time. People hoaxing, people being mistaken, people lying, etc.  And aside from a small handful of subjective scientists, the bulk of the scientific community agrees with that appraisal of the evidence.  The proponent side has but a small handful of scientists who seem to be indulging a hobby. They have not, in all those years, brought this thing one step closer to conclusion.  Thankfully science requires a consensus of opinion.  The consensus is right now that there is nothing really to this Bigfoot thing.  The consensus is that the evidence is not compelling and is certainly not how a betting man would bet. Not unless he wanted to be parted from his money swiftly. 

[Guest DWA]

When the evidence mounts by the week; when TV is starting to pay ham-fisted but almost serious attention to field research; when the search hasn't even gotten serious yet in terms of time and money...

 

(...and OK this is just personally people whom I know to be following protocols more scientific than the day is long are reporting all kinds of evidence, including encounters, even on almost no time and their own money...)

 

...I might not say "not outrageous" so much as I'd say "not likely."

When the research gets serious we'll know inside of months.  If it takes that long.

[dmaker]

At what point does the research become serious enough? There a very large number of boots on the ground looking for Bigfoot. Quite a few of those are claiming close, visual contact. Members here, in fact, claim contact close enough to tell you that KY Bigfeets like to eat pine bark as if it were cotton candy. Coast to coast if you tallied up all the amateur Bigfoot adventure groups and the BFRO BF camp-outs, and the numerous hunters, hikers, campers, wildlife management personnel, well the number gets pretty staggering I would imagine. But your argument still spins on this notion that not enough people are out there? Sure not all of these people are equipped to gather a specimen or samples, but quite a few are there looking for Bigfoot and are carrying cameras. 

 

This notion that there are not enough phd lab coats combing the woods seems a little feckless considering it really does not require all that much  training or equipment to pick up some hair, or some scat or take some photos. Again it just seems like a way to explain why BF continues to remain unconfirmed. But this explanation does not really hold that much water imo.

Edited September 8, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

"The evidence is compelling; the proof not in.

The evidence says that is how a betting man bets. "

You make statements like this as if they are fact. They are not. They are completely your opinion. I do not find the evidence compelling at all. I believe it points to people each and every time. People hoaxing, people being mistaken, people lying, etc. And aside from a small handful of subjective scientists, the bulk of the scientific community agrees with that appraisal of the evidence. The proponent side has but a small handful of scientists who seem to be indulging a hobby. They have not, in all those years, brought this thing one step closer to conclusion. Thankfully science requires a consensus of opinion. The consensus is right now that there is nothing really to this Bigfoot thing. The consensus is that the evidence is not compelling and is certainly not how a betting man would bet. Not unless he wanted to be parted from his money swiftly.

r u new around here?

It has been proven that all scientist are narrow minded, backward thinking troglodytes.

[Guest DWA]

Nah, I'm just waiting for the first pronouncement I have heard from one against the reality of sasquatch that makes sense.

 

Seems you guys would have that info.  And:

 

[crickets]

 

dmaker doesn't understand that one doesn't bet with the uninformed.  One bets with the information.

 

Which he might have, except for all the

 

[crickets]

 

I hear.

[dmaker]

One does not bet with the information if the information is either out right false or unverifiable.

[Guest DWA]

[crickets]

 

A consensus of ignorance has been proven over the centuries to be not worth much.

But I must agree your stamina is something.  Might be Guinnessworthy.  Have you checked?

[Guest]

At what point does the research become serious enough? There a very large number of boots on the ground looking for Bigfoot. Quite a few of those are claiming close, visual contact. Members here, in fact, claim contact close enough to tell you that KY Bigfeets like to eat pine bark as if it were cotton candy. Coast to coast if you tallied up all the amateur Bigfoot adventure groups and the BFRO BF camp-outs, and the numerous hunters, hikers, campers, wildlife management personnel, well the number gets pretty staggering I would imagine. But your argument still spins on this notion that not enough people are out there? Sure not all of these people are equipped to gather a specimen or samples, but quite a few are there looking for Bigfoot and are carrying cameras.

This notion that there are not enough phd lab coats combing the woods seems a little feckless considering it really does not require all that much training or equipment to pick up some hair, or some scat or take some photos. Again it just seems like a way to explain why BF continues to remain unconfirmed. But this explanation does not really hold that much water imo.

in looking at newly discovered animals over the last 30-40 years it's clear that there are many examples of laypeople basically making the discovery and science then confirming it. Some of these animals are extremely rare, yet no scientist was needed to find them.

[crickets] A consensus of ignorance has been proven over the centuries to be not worth much.But I must agree your stamina is something.  Might be Guinnessworthy.  Have you checked?

I don't like the crickets

go back to your teacher gimmick please

[Will]

But I must agree your stamina is something.  Might be Guinnessworthy.  Have you checked?

Its a mystery inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Certainly worth a six pack.

 

If we get him drunk, he might tell us why he's here.

Edited September 8, 2013 by will

[Guest DWA]

in looking at newly discovered animals over the last 30-40 years it's clear that there are many examples of laypeople basically making the discovery and science then confirming it. Some of these animals are extremely rare, yet no scientist was needed to find them.

 

Your list.  (Oh.  Patterson proved bigfoot.  I know you forgot that one.)

 

I don't like the crickets

go back to your teacher gimmick please

 

I know.  the

 

[crickets]

 

are loud when none of your science consensus guys are stepping up with one thing that might make anyone looking question why he's doing it.

 

[crickets]

 

don't stop.  It's their nature.  I hear them most of the time, particularly here, when waiting for something of substance from the science consensus guys.  I could see why

 

[crickets]

 

might make some uncomfortable.  But a science consensus guy could drown them out.  If any of them had anything to say.

[Guest]

Less cute stuff and more clarity please.

Edited September 8, 2013 by mbh