Guest Llawgoch Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 The bird analogy isn't flawed at all, particularly on that point in bold. That is the starting point for all assessment of all evidence in all fields in which evidence is assessed. One is showing clear and illogical bias in reserving a separate judgment for a category for which one a priori just kinda sorta maybe feels that starting point inappropriate. Except in field where hoaxery and lies are rampant - which is undeniable in Bigfoot. I can give you many many examples of people lying and hoaxing about Bigfoot. Start with Rick Dyer and youtube. Show me similar in garden bird surveys, and your point holds water. Note that I will provide these examples if you can't find them for yourself. I'm still waiting for your examples of DNA results showing unknown primate. You know, the ones that you insist exist even though you refuse to reference any examples whatsoever. If one believes that a majority of reports are false, one would perforce have to believe that they all are. It simply isn't logical to presume otherwise; if the animals are real there is no logical reason to believe that most reports are faked. People are simply seeing them. It is also simple logic that for any phenomenon like this, unreported encounters probably outnumber reported by a sizable multiple. Again, if one does not believe that, one believes that the data is not only false but actively constructed i.e. faked by the organizations compiling reports. It's just the way the world works. Most people seeing something, and it absolutely does not matter what, don't report it to any authority. Right? Right. This will be far more true when the societal default presumption is that the thing doesn't exist. Simple logic is also why one can safely presume that people misidentifying known animals are an insignificant source of reports. People simply don't do that. They search for knowns when encountering an unknown, not the other way around. There isn't even any point in discussing this. It's intuitive. Problem? Use your own life experience as your guide. If you would consider that in any way "normal," it'll make you see this. This is comical. You continually dismiss my supported arguments as "simply because I say so" and then post your own and what's your reasoning? "My own life experience makes it intuitive". Wonderful. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) "It is also simple logic that for any phenomenon like this, unreported encounters probably outnumber reported by a sizable multiple. Again, if one does not believe that, one believes that the data is not only false but actively constructed i.e. faked by the organizations compiling reports. It's just the way the world works. Most people seeing something, and it absolutely does not matter what, don't report it to any authority. Right? Right. This will be far more true when the societal default presumption is that the thing doesn't exist" DWA So one should be compelled to believe Bigfoot exists not only by the number of reported sightings, but also ( and oddly I might add) by the number of unreported sightings? Uhm, .....okaaaay. Well, like most of your arguments, this can neither be verified or quantified, so it's ultimately just you thinking out loud. Edited January 1, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 1, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) Well, like most of your arguments, this can neither be verified or quantified, so it's ultimately just you thinking out loud. For the sake of curiosity, what makes what you are doing any different? At least there are solid parallels for DWA's position. Only a portion of any disease is identified. Only a portion of any particular type of crime is reported. You can ask any epidemiology specialist or law enforcement professional, they can confirm this. So there is some rational basis for his claims. Your position, on the other hand, only seems to be backed by your own wishful thinking. Can you cite examples to back your claim? If not ... the argument you offer is invalid. MIB Edited January 1, 2014 by MIB 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 ^^ What, exactly, is my "claim" MiB? It was an observation about someones argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 MIB Indeed. The encounter reports we have are only from people who have had an encounter and been motivated enough to tell someone. It is not at all unreasonable to infer that there is an unknown (and possibly greater?) number of encounters which never see the light of day. I would expect the fear of ridicule to be a serious limiter on the number of putative encounters coming through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 Plussed, MIB. The induced sidestep demonstrates the impact of your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 For the sake of curiosity, what makes what you are doing any different? At least there are solid parallels for DWA's position. Only a portion of any disease is identified. Only a portion of any particular type of crime is reported. You can ask any epidemiology specialist or law enforcement professional, they can confirm this. So there is some rational basis for his claims. Your position, on the other hand, only seems to be backed by your own wishful thinking. Can you cite examples to back your claim? If not ... the argument you offer is invalid. MIB Crickets............................. Well said, MIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 ^^ What, exactly, is my "claim" MiB? It was an observation about someones argument. Your claim that "this can neither be verified or quantified". is not merely an "observation about someones argument". It is a clearly stated claim by you that there is no way to verify that there are unreported sightings and therefore they must not be taken into consideration. So MIB pointed out that you're guilty of the same "wishful thinking" as you're claiming against DWA. Simple logic says that based on the sheer number of reported sightings just in the BFRO database alone, that there has to be a significant number of sightings that are not reported. That is also borne out by the number of sightings that are reported well after the sightings occurred. Where the witnesses clearly say that the reason they took so long to make the report was that they were afraid of being ridiculed. The same would apply to all of the name withheld reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 1, 2014 Share Posted January 1, 2014 (edited) ^^ Right, and none of which you just said Larry can be verified, now can it? How do you account for or weigh unreported sightings? Especially when even the reported ones cannot be verified in the first place. Edited January 1, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 One doesn't weigh unreported sightings, one doesn't have to, and no one in any scientific field has ever done it. Here - as in the case of everything science has found out thus far - evidence on hand is sufficient to track the truth. Only the time and expertise, and money, need be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts