Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Guest DWA]

My mistake, its Eric Davis

 

Maybe you should ask him or look it up. You always demand bigfoot skeptics inform themselves.

I am not informing myself upon the single opinion of one crank whose name you didn't get right.

 

Just like I am not basing my opinion on sasquatch on one tale.  Poor idea in science.  All that one guy has is one story.  Shoot, buy a bigfoot habituator book and you have something as reliable.

 

SETI is proof that just because a scientist does it doesn't make it sensible.  Just like saying bigfoot isn't real when one knows nothing about the topic.

Edited September 11, 2013 by DWA

[sheri]

If I could plus you DWA I would. Good posts.

[Guest DWA]

Clearly you're not familiar with the evidence. You're an uninformed skeptic. Now where have I heard that before?

True skeptics are informed.  I just like to show that off occasionally.

 

You haven't been listening.  One tale is one tale.  Frequency and coherence?  Now that might be an ape.

[Guest Urkelbot]

What's a UFO?  Lights in the sky, right?

 

Can Davies show us footprints?  Can we analyze a film?  No we cannot.

What about the witness and abduction reports from good honest people who risk ridicule and shame by telling of their accounts. You must look at these the same way as all the Bigfoot accounts right?

[MIB]

When it comes to Hawking ... remember that Einstein was not convinced of the validity of implications others saw from his theory of relativity, but others seem to have proven those since.   Even the greatest of minds have some limits.   Certainly within the limits of today's understanding he seems correct, but who knows what tomorrow brings?  Often today's big picture turns out to be merely a special case of something bigger yet by tomorrow.  

 

I think, just like our topic of bigfoot, when it comes to UFOs the smart money says "here's my best guess and I'm going with it" while keeping an open mind for what we learn tomorrow rewriting the landscape.   Its not wise to invest so much "ego" into any one theory that we can't back away when confronted with new data.

 

I know, I know, blah blah blah ...

 

MIB

[dmaker]

"SETI is proof that just because a scientist does it doesn't make it sensible"

 

One might say exactly the same thing about Bigfoot.

True skeptics are informed.  I just like to show that off occasionally.

 

You haven't been listening.  One tale is one tale.  Frequency and coherence?  Now that might be an ape.

It also might be a fairy or the loch ness monster. Or a ghost, or a ufo. 

[Guest]

I am not informing myself upon the single opinion of one crank whose name you didn't get right.

 

Just like I am not basing my opinion on sasquatch on one tale.  Poor idea in science.  All that one guy has is one story.  Shoot, buy a bigfoot habituator book and you have something as reliable.

 

SETI is proof that just because a scientist does it doesn't make it sensible.  Just like saying bigfoot isn't real when one knows nothing about the topic.

So why should others on the opinions of a couple "cranks" who are a minority in science?

 

And there have been thousands of reports of UFOs and alien abductions. About the same as bigfoot.

[JDL]

 

 

 

JDL, I'm not saying that all reports are flawed simply because they are reports. I am saying that all reports are a type of evidence that has a certain value and place. Sure it can be useful in some scenarios. But it makes for poor evidence.   So when someone presents me a hypothetical that is an anecdotal report then my response is going to be the same whether that report sounds convincing or not. And that basically is...cool story bro, got any proof? I am not sure what else one is supposed to do with that type of evidence in a scientific framework. 

 

Fair enough, but it's important to recognize that any position regarding the collective value of reports is, in and of itself, nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

Perhaps the greatest value of the reports from a scientific perspective is that they indicate, to one who objectively considers the possible existence of sasquatch, that there may be something there.  Beyond that, they provide information that can be used to formulate hypotheses and that can be used to develop experimental strategies to prove or disprove those hypotheses.

 

So a would be scientist can adopt a bias regarding the reports that leads to dismissiveness and inaction, or a true scientist can form an objective hypothesis and seek to confirm or refute it.  As the number of consistent reports mounts, it becomes more difficult to objectively dismiss the subject, but no less difficult to dismiss by one who embraces a bias.

[dmaker]

^^ I agree with you actually. Well for the most part. As the reports mount they begin to paint a pretty unbelievable picture.  But your comments on the value of reports are spot on.  Obviously they cannot prove anything and no one here, on either side, is saying otherwise. I understand that. My biggest complaint here with the reports is the constant charge from DWA that skeptics must disprove each and every one. That is a ridiculous notion and a task that is impossible. There is no such burden. The burden is on the proponent side to prove just ONE of the reports true and voila, debate over. But to suggest that there is a burden on skeptics to disprove a sighting report is smoke screen. No one can do something that is impossible. That is the very reason that anecdotal evidence is not good evidence. Especially if you are talking about scientific evidence trying to prove something. 

[Guest]

Same for bigfoot. Eyewitness anecdotes consistently reporting little greys. How could you say these wonderful people are lying or delusional?

oh man

brutal

[JDL]

But do you not recognize that the assertion that all reports are false, no matter how many, no matter the quality of the witness, no matter their consistency and volume, is as extraordinary a claim as the claim that bigfoot exist?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Precisely.  The Achilles' heel of the bigfoot skeptic argument is their failure to recognize their claim, which has led to a failure to analyze it.

 

Things like the scientific denial of sasquatch have happened many times in the history of science.

 

Things like the Comprehensive Sasquatch False Positive?

 

Never.  Never close.  Everything else with this kind of evidence backing it up is proven real.  Period.

[dmaker]

^^ Sorry, but no. I find the claim for the existence of Bigfoot to be unsupported. I feel the evidence is not a mystery. I believe all of it points to one thing--man. I have said this before. Hoaxes, mistakes, etc. But always the same source. Us. Not a giant ape running amok.  So it follows from there that all reports are false for one of many reasons. And yes no matter the source, the consistency and volume.  If there is no Bigfoot, then there are no such things as genuine Bigfoot sighting reports. 

[Guest DWA]

What about the witness and abduction reports from good honest people who risk ridicule and shame by telling of their accounts. You must look at these the same way as all the Bigfoot accounts right?

No.

 

Where are the alien footprints; the artifacts of the craft; the surgical scars; the etc. etc. etc?

 

Anybody have a film of an alien anything near as obvious and clear and subject (and subjected to) as detailed scrutiny as Patty?

 

How many scientists vouch for alien abductions?  On what are they basing this...people's stories?  Um...THOUSANDS OF THEM?  In which many of the witnesses found evidence the animal left behind, including dangit those pesky footprints?

 

No.  In every way imaginable, sasquatch evidence trumps the cloudcuckoo backing SETI by so much it's laughable, and not borderline.

 

It was a real mistake bringing a little green man to a bigfoot fight.  It truly calls the scientific 'consensus' against sasquatch into very serious question...and very rightfully so.

If all the dollars poured down the SETI rathole were summarily moved to bigfoot, we'd have proof before the end of next year.

 

So.

 

When are the aliens dropping in to cage us/eat us/thank us for our judgment...?

 

OK, that was cruel.

Edited September 11, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Anybody have a film of an alien anything near as obvious and clear and subject (and subjected to) as detailed scrutiny as Patty?

-Patty is not that clear and really has little chance of proving anything other than adults will argue over a 50 yr old grainy video for years.

 

"Where are the alien footprints; the artifacts of the craft; the surgical scars; the etc. etc. etc?"

 

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/chasing-ufos/articles/five-good-reasons-to-believe-in-ufos/

Read the article for the details, but here are the 5 reasons from the article. Sound familiar?:

• The long, documented history of sightings
• Numerous modern sightings by credible, well-trained professional observers
• Consistencies in the descriptions of purported alien ships.
• Possible physical evidence of encounters with alien spacecraft.
• Physiological effects on UFO witnesses

 

 

 

How many scientists vouch for alien abductions? 

- How many scientists vouch for Bigfoot? 3,4 ? Out of how many scientists in the world?  And those scientists who "vouch for Bigfoot", how many Bigfoot specific peer reviewed papers have they published?

Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker