Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[dmaker]

^^ You're suggesting that the Ontario Sasquatch vocals are genuine?

"One can point out that something asserted as fact is unsubstantiated"

 

I thought that was what I was doing. 

[Guest DWA]

In a thread aimed at swapping stories, sure make all sorts of claims without evidence that you want to. It does not mean, however, that they will be taken by everyone as fact.  Nor should you expect them to be.  

And you should not expect to be taken as fact the ludicrous thesis that thousands of people are having biologically-correct hallucinations due to...oh, you know, random sundry kinds of stuff.  That simply cannot be taken seriously.

 

Just how many maladies are there that imbue random citizens with expert primatological knowledge and the savvy of professional wildlife biologists?

 

Didn't think so.  You're doing what you accuse others of doing, simple as that.

 

Only wait.  They have evidence backing them up.  What do you have?

[dmaker]

" In my opinion, no one on this forum, No One, has the authority to determine second-hand, without direct evidence, what is or is not a fact experienced by another, let alone dictate to any person what they can claim as a fact.  One can point out that something asserted as fact is unsubstantiated, but one cannot refute a claim of fact without direct evidence to do so, and a lack of evidence that a fact is false precludes proof that an assertion of fact is false (sucks having an argument turned back on one, doesn't it?). " -JDL

 

My bold. That is true, but I did not refute. I simply said it cannot be stated as a fact. See, that is the problem with anecdotal evidence, it can never be taken as a fact. There is always a margin of error. So I don't need any evidence to point out that anecdotal testimony is not factual. I never once said the person was wrong, I simply said the claim cannot be stated as a fact. And it can't. See the difference?

"... random citizens with expert primatological knowledge..."

 

And who are all these citizens with demonstrable primatological knowledge?  And even if there were, it matters not at all.  Eyewitness testimony is weak evidence. Period. Nothing that you can do or say will ever change that. But feel free to keep trying.

 

And honestly, what is this evidence on their side?  What evidence do we have for Bigfoot to date?:

 

• Eye witness testimony--the weakest form of evidence possible in a scientific discussion.
•  
• Ambiguous tracks.  Many of which have been proven to have been hoaxed.
•  
• Blurry photos and video. Again, many ( if not most) of which have been proven to be the result of hoaxes. 
•  
• Biological samples that always come back as contaminated or from some completely common animal. Never anything that could be used to support the claim for Bigfoot. 

Am I missing a substantial body of evidence?   If I was going to claim an 800 lb ape-man running amok in North America including hanging around in backyards and dumpsters, I would want some better evidence than that. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

"And who are all these citizens with demonstrable primatological knowledge?  And even if there were, it matters not at all.  Eyewitness testimony is weak evidence. Period. Nothing that you can do or say will ever change that. But feel free to keep trying."

 

And that's flat wrong, and you keep saying it.

 

I wish I had to try.  This is a barrel o'fish.

 

[chelefoot]

I think the issue some may be having is with the way you said it, dmaker. You said, "You can't state that as fact".

 

Truth is, anyone CAN state anything they want as fact... that doesn't mean it is - but they can state it as such. Right?

[dmaker]

^^ Of course they can. I guess perhaps I should have said something like " you cannot say that without evidence and think people will take it as fact.." or some such.  I had no intention of telling people what they can, or cannot say. 

"And who are all these citizens with demonstrable primatological knowledge?  And even if there were, it matters not at all.  Eyewitness testimony is weak evidence. Period. Nothing that you can do or say will ever change that. But feel free to keep trying."

 

And that's flat wrong, and you keep saying it.

 

I wish I had to try.  This is a barrel o'fish.

What part of that is wrong exactly?  I know you are enamored of the eye witness reports for Bigfoot. But they still are the weakest type of evidence in any scientific discussion. I could list 10 different sources and you will still argue that you are correct on this one.  

 

I put this in my sig line so that it would be easy to reference since you constantly refuse to accept this fact:

 

Simply put, eyewitness testimony is poor evidence†(Roesch 2001).  I suspect your steadfast refusal to acknowledge this commonly held aspect of the scientific process is because the bulk of your argument for Bigfoot rests on the anecdotal evidence. If you take that away, you don't really have much of anything.  And one wonders why mainstream science show little to no interest in Bigfoot....

Edited September 17, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Just because you quote it doesn't make it right. 

 

And believe me, a member of the mainstream confederacy of ignorance quoting it certainly doesn't make it right.

 

It's a wrong statement, as the many scientific facts that began with anecdotal evidence prove, over and over and over and over again.

[dmaker]

"Just because you quote it doesn't make it right." 

 

Good to know how much you value the wisdom of others. What are those things in your signature? Oh yeah, quotes...

[southernyahoo]

^^ You're suggesting that the Ontario Sasquatch vocals are genuine?

"One can point out that something asserted as fact is unsubstantiated"

 

I thought that was what I was doing. 

 

I'm saying you know the Ontario Sas sounds are hominin in origin in the same way others would when they hear it, and therefore "not normal wildlife".

 

The same applies to a number of good recordings, which have never been debunked with the "thats a known animal" argument, except by assuming it's a human.     

[Guest DWA]

"Just because you quote it doesn't make it right." 

 

Good to know how much you value the wisdom of others. What are those things in your signature? Oh yeah, quotes...

They're good ones.

 

Science is separating wheat from chaff.  Evidence is how one does that.

 

You're not telling me that Kim Kardashian and George Schaller have the same weight pronouncing on zoology, now are you?

Edited September 17, 2013 by DWA

[Painthorse]

Chelefoot, your above post is correct, JMO. What is fact to some may not be fact to others. Sorry that one sentence in my post derailed this thread.

What I'm not sorry about is actually saying it.  It gets frustrating when people who experience visuals and vocals come here to share their experiences and get "whacked" by a few that may not believe these events happened or "it's always something else" scenario.

 

I'll bet a good percentage of us here that post have experience with the outdoors and are knowledgeable about wildlife. Many, not so knowledgeable. But we all still have something in common, we've experienced something out of the norm and want to share with others who may have experienced something similar.

 

I can step out my door almost on a nightly basis and if I'm out long enough I'll experience anything from a lone coyote to a wonderful chorus. Do I know for sure as a fact that what I am hearing are coyotes? All those different pitches of yips, yaps and long drawn out howls, YES, I do, from experience.  A fox as small as it is can make some Gawd awful sounds, unbecoming of such a little critter. Same goes for bobs and possum's. A possum can growl loud and deep enough to make your skin crawl.

 

So when something is not "normal" many of us know it's not. So as far as fact, can't help it if others don't agree. It's my fact and it's good enough for me.

 

Soo, another derail. People just need to keep posting their experiences and just ignore what some may not deem good enough for their satisfaction. JMO.

 

LCB, looking forward to hearing of anything else going on in your neck of the woods.

[dmaker]

They're good ones.

 

Science is separating wheat from chaff.  Evidence is how one does that.

 

You're not telling me that Kim Kardashian and George Schaller have the same weight pronouncing on zoology, now are you?

Of course not. But I could line up some quotes on anecdotal evidence from pretty impressive people saying the same thing, and you would still knock it down because it doesn't fit in your argument for the strength of anecdotal evidence for Bigfoot. In fact even Dr. Krantz ( someone you constantly revere on this board) seems to approach anecdotal evidence with caution:

 

The true believers are also generally as uninformed as the skeptics. Reading a few books and articles presenting a favorable view hardly qualifies one as being knowledgeable on the subject. Sasquatch enthusiasts are notorious for the way they accept and repeat stories without any attempt at verification. I know one investigator who insists on two accounts of each sighting, but is satisfied if both of them heard about it from the same source! My own experience suggests that the probability of truth of each account is cut in half for every human it passes through. What a direct eyewitness tells me is only 50% probable; if I hear it from an intermediary its likelihood drops to 25%, third person accounts are wrong seven times out of eight, and so on. Many believers pay no attention to this problem of lowering probability of truth. Dr. Grover Krantz, Sasquatch vs the Believers

 

And that is all well and good Painthorse, and I see your point, but I can't believe Bigfoot exists simply because you heard something that you could not attribute to what you know about wildlife sounds in your area. The leap of faith required for that would make Evil Knievel shake in his boots. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by dmaker

[Rockape]

Oh boy! Another argument between dmaker and DWA about the existence of bigfoot! I can't get enough of those.

[sheri]

dmaker, what makes you think anyone here is trying to make you a believer ? Why do you make it about you ? I know I didn't come on this forum to make people believe. I am here because I know this creature is real. If you don't think so , that's fine. But when anyone posts their experience's, I really don't beiieve their doing it for your benefit. No offense but we are here to share experience's, and our sighting's. 

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Concerning the Ontario Sasquatch recordings, while incredible, it is logical they could have only been made by a human or something with those capabilities. Given the ability to jump from low to high and everything in between and the overall volume of the subject, I think I know who is responsible, I challenge someone to present a convincing copy of those sounds that they hoaxed just to see what they could come up with. I have a feeling that it might be very difficult to duplicate the range and volume of the subject in Ontario's recordings. Prove me wrong and I will accept that these could be faked, prove me right by ignoring this post. What separated the whoops I heard from being human were, the overall volume with no effort, thus clarity at a high volume, as a musician and singer I understand that difficulty. As well as the ability to slide the range from low to high without breaking or cracking, while still maintaining a perfect rise in pitch. I found these impossible to duplicate.

Good to see you guys back at it, thought you opened up your own thread, Dmaker that might be a good idea, a thread where people try to prove to you Bigfoot exists. You could present your own case against it, and let people tackle your concerns. An honest no bars hold exchange....