dmaker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My issue isn't with someone saying they think it is compelling bigfoot evidence. I would be surprised if it were otherwise here of all places. My issue is with the logic of it's compelling bigfoot evidence until someone proves that it is not. That is not how science works. And this coming from the self proclaimed king of the scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker, Point well stated and well taken. Generally I find what evidence is generally available allows me to THINK they exist. If it turns out they do not I won't be disappointed. What I do know though is that the evidence, while compelling enough for me to think Sasquatch is a real creature, is not compelling enough for science to be at least publically active in any investigations, Even if I think a type specimen is on a slab somewhere it doesn't make it so, If I think they exist though, I have to accept the whole ball of wax without protraction because committing myself to the subject without proof means that the burden of gaining proof is my own responsibility. In saying that, I should pursue the avenues that a somewhat intelligent person has determined has the best chance at getting to the bottom of things. I am prepared for succeeding and for succeeding in failure all at the same time. Because finding out that the creature does NOT exist is also success when one really gives the matter any objective thought at all. Edited March 6, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Well said Hil! I agree with everything you said except I must admit I'd be disappointed if we never find real proof of Bigfoot. A childhood fantasy perhaps, but the not knowing is what makes it interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Hello dmaker, Point well stated and well taken. Generally I find what evidence is generally available allows me to THINK they exist. If it turns out they do not I won't be disappointed. What I do know though is that the evidence, while compelling enough for me to think Sasquatch is a real creature, is not compelling enough for science to be at least publically active in any investigations, Even if I think a type specimen is on a slab somewhere it doesn't make it so, If I think they exist though, I have to accept the whole ball of wax without protraction because committing myself to the subject without proof means that the burden of gaining proof is my own responsibility. In saying that, I should pursue the avenues that a somewhat intelligent person has determined has the best chance at getting to the bottom of things. I am prepared for succeeding and for succeeding in failure all at the same time. Because finding out that the creature does NOT exist is also success when one really gives the matter any objective thought at all. Hiflier, I'm curious. What would convince you that the creature does not exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker, What a great question! Believe it or not? I've asked myself the same thing. Off the top of my head I'd have to say it would a combination of things. Just as it's a combination of things that I think points toward existence. Ivan T. Sanderson, John Green's Database, and the PGF would have to definitly not exist. Members here like Coonbo and Branco who have seen them and investigated reports.....same thing. It's because my first inclination is to trust people. The lack of a body though is a serious contender in any skepticism I may have. All in all? Yeah, it a number of factors that, over the course of my life had I not been exposed to them, I might be thinking differently today. Tough, interesting question......GOOD question. Thanks dmaker, I will give that some thought One of these days I just might pose the opposite question to you, my friend. Edited March 6, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I ask because you said that "...finding out that the creature does NOT exist is also success..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker, Well of course it would be! Would it not put the "Bigfoot Industry" out of business? If non-existence ever becomes fact then a lot of folks would no longer be trapped in an apparent endless loop of debate and in some cases fear. Fighting fear is my main endeavor whether in the subject of UFO's OR Sasquatch. One of my chief goals in pursuing the subject at the "official" level is to get that answer out in the open. if agencies won't say they exist then why not get them to say it doesn't?!? If the creature doesn't exist then I shouldn't need fear my contacting ANY agency at any level right? Yep. Success cuts both ways. Believe me when I say I've given this a GREAT deal of thought and do not enter the effort lightly. Either outcome is fine with me. The going would be easier in fact if NON-existence was "officially" proclaimed. Edited March 6, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Well I'm not sure how high an office you are expecting a response from, but the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's Chief Wildlife Biologist responded to a request for bigfoot laws with: “The mythical animal does not exist in nature or otherwise. I understand, however, that some well organized hoaxes or pranks have occurred, leading some people to believe that such an animal does live. However, the simple truth of the matter is that there is no such animal anywhere in the world. I am sorry to disappoint you. However, no program or action in relation to mythical animals is warranted.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 the trackway was made by a triathlete in training as thermalman stated above. Clearly. If it's impossible, it's because An Olympic Gold Medalist! did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guillaume Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The going would be easier in fact if NON-existence was "officially" proclaimed. There will probably never be anything definitive in this regard, mainly because science doesn't have anything like a king that makes proclamations, but Dmaker's quote from a working biologist is typical. The scientific community and those who do practical work in the application of science pretty widely and clearly reject the existence of bigfoot. For example, Meldrum's bigfoot work is rejected by his peers, because all he has is wildly speculative, unsupported claims. There's nothing objective to encourage anyone to believe that bigfoot exists, just stories and leaps of faith. So to address the topic of this thread, there's no best bigfoot evidence in the past 10-15 years, just as there's no tangible evidence of any kind for the existence of bigfoot over the past several thousands of years that humans have lived in North America, and the smart money is on this fact never changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 ^^^That's actually showing the worst of scientists, who are always at their worst when they refuse to practice science. Meldrum's claims aren't wild and unsupported; neither are Bindernagel's; nor Mionczynski's; nor Alley's; nor Krantz's; ...and I could keep going. Their observations come from thousands of others, people as sober and practical and efficient members of a working society as any scientist, people who know what they saw and are consistently describing it. That quote is typical all right; it's typical of a discipline that forgets what its discipline is about when the topic gets outside its comfort zone. To insist on proof before looking at evidence is anti-science and anti-logic. As any scientist - ^^^like them - who actually has his scientist hat on knows. That scientist - like dmaker - is stating something as absolute fact when there is no way he can prove it. No scientist in full possession of his faculties does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 So to sum up this thread, in the last 15 years there has been no actual evidence. There are things footers want to call evidence, but under skeptical common sense analysis none of it works. Why did we have all this great evidence in the 60's and in the last 44 yrs nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted March 7, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 7, 2014 I take it Darrell that you have a different definition for the word evidence, one that I must not have been previously aware of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 ^^^Oh there's definitely a bigfoot-skeptic definition of evidence. By the actual standards of the scientific community, it's just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) ^^^That's actually showing the worst of scientists, who are always at their worst when they refuse to practice science. Meldrum's claims aren't wild and unsupported; neither are Bindernagel's; nor Mionczynski's; nor Alley's; nor Krantz's; ...and I could keep going. Their observations come from thousands of others, people as sober and practical and efficient members of a working society as any scientist, people who know what they saw and are consistently describing it. That quote is typical all right; it's typical of a discipline that forgets what its discipline is about when the topic gets outside its comfort zone. To insist on proof before looking at evidence is anti-science and anti-logic. As any scientist - ^^^like them - who actually has his scientist hat on knows. That scientist - like dmaker - is stating something as absolute fact when there is no way he can prove it. No scientist in full possession of his faculties does that. No. Actually I don't have a problem with saying " I don't know". But not "I don't know, but it's probably bigfoot". Saying I don't know means the answer is unknown. The problem with most bigfoot advocates is "I don't know" immediately opens the door for a parade of tin-foil hat wearing cryptids. DWA, you demonstrated this recently when discussing a trackway. You state you don't know for a fact what made it, but then had to add that it remains compelling evidence for bigfoot. ( and then added until someone proves otherwise) A great example of ignoring the principle of positive evidence by the way. "I don't know" should remain simply that, not be a catch phrase for " but it's bigfoot!" Edited March 7, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts