I Am Feeling More And More Disconnected From The Bigfoot Community

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Not at all. I said that they fail to substantiate their claims. That would be done by presenting evidence, which isn't proof, per se'. My personal opinion of their claims isn't indicative of the truthfulness of their claims. Claims are simply that, and are unfounded without evidence, no matter which side of the proverbial fence you find yourself on.

[Guest LarryP]

OK, understood, See.

 

But I think the "fence" is the real problem.

[Guest Crowlogic]

It is the outlandish claims that do the most damage to the credibility of the topic.  However I believe it was Albert Ostman himself who in a late in life interview made some "paranormal" claims about Bigfoot.  It IMO threw a very unfavorable light on Ostman's account.

 

That said a social/economic statistical survey of the types making outlandish BF claims would be beneficial.  As far as I know there haven't been any mega wealthy and important people making such statements.  This, if in fact true, can lend weight to the possibility that outlandish claiming types are indeed seeking attention and positions denoting a special dispensation for having those said encounters.  

Then that leads to your personal opinion of what constitutes substantiation. 

 

How is someone supposed to provide proof that fits into your own personal paradigm regarding "logical and realistic information without all of the anthropomorphic and paranormal associations" ?

 There are accepted methods for substantiation of proof.  The scientific method is one such method.  It is not about proof on a person to person basis.  It is about proof that  can be tested and repeated.  There have been scores of fantastically well presented stories  that turned out false.  

[Guest DWA]

Response to the OP:  NOPE.  I never, but never, find myself in that condition, at all.

 

Anyone suffering from it has a clear remedy:  acquaintance with the evidence.

 

Such acquaintance will assure one that first, yes indeed, 99.9% of the field that gets talked about is, indeed, crap; and second, that it's the sheer bulk and consistency of the overall evidence - something that few indeed talk about - that points, clearly and without issue, to the reality of the animal.

[Guest LarryP]

It is the outlandish claims that do the most damage to the credibility of the topic.  However I believe it was Albert Ostman himself who in a late in life interview made some "paranormal" claims about Bigfoot.  It IMO threw a very unfavorable light on Ostman's account.

 

 

 

Key there being, "IMO".

 

You know what they say about opinions.

 

 

That said a social/economic statistical survey of the types making outlandish BF claims would be beneficial. As far as I know there haven't been any mega wealthy and important people making such statements. This, if in fact true, can lend weight to the possibility that outlandish claiming types are indeed seeking attention and positions denoting a special dispensation for having those said encounters.

 

 

You're making quite a judgemental leap with that statement.

 

First of all, you've failed to define what you consider to be "mega wealthy" and "important".

 

Secondly, you're making the supposition that these "outlandish claiming types" are actually making outlandish claims.

 

 

 

There are accepted methods for substantiation of proof. The scientific method is one such method.

 

 

Experience is another method.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,
 

...99.9% of the field that gets talked about is, indeed, crap...

That would include claims of "numerous" examples of "unknown Primate DNA"?

...and second, that it's the sheer bulk and consistency of the overall evidence - something that few indeed talk about - that points, clearly and without issue (my bold) to the reality of the animal.

Except for the claim of "numerous" examples of "unknown Primate DNA"? Which is an issue  that renders that reality as being one unproved.

 

For the umpteenth time would you please address this so that others are not misled by your admission that "numerous" examples of "unknown Primate DNA" exist!!? But if that is indeed true then would you be kind enough to provide all links to that information?

Edited March 16, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest LarryP]

Hello DWA,

 

 if that is indeed true then would you be kind enough to provide all links to that information?

 

No Bones about It: Ancient DNA from Siberia Hints at Previously Unknown Human Relative

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-hominin-species/

[Guest DWA]

^^^Perzackly.

 

Note what is going on here:  scientists accept this because it is something they are comfortable with.

 

That a sample of hair someone sent them saying it came from a bigfoot did, in fact, come from a bigfoot?  Not so much.

 

The indisputable fact is:  many people have alleged unknown primate DNA from samples they sent in, with no reason to do so other than that it happened.

 

Until it is proven to me that they are all liars, the only reasonable assumption is:

 

It has happened, numerous times.

 

(If it were documented, silly, as in the testers went on the record, we'd have proven sasquatch by now.  Get how that works?)

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

No I do not get "how it works". You were the one claiming "unknown Primate DNA". I also know how you deal with those who have asked for your links:

 

DWA post#1655 Sykes/Sartori thread:

I never found the post to which dmaker refers.  I didn't consider it worth the time, and considered my response far more instructive....

 

Now as to the numerous "unknown primate" finds which have occurred, I have no interest in scanning the archives and documenting them for anyone who will accept nothing but a body as evidence let alone proof.  That I've read them is sufficient for me.  Anyone - including any scientist - who wants to bother expanding his horizons a bit can read.  Useful skill that.

 

Thanks for your help, useless as it is.

Edited March 16, 2014 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Allow me to clarify?

DWA: "Now as to the numerous "unknown primate" finds which have occurred,..(See the DWA quote in my post#39) 

DWA: "The indisputable fact is: many people have alleged (my bold)unknown primate DNA from samples they sent in, with no reason to do so other than that it happened (huh?). Until it is proven to me that they are all liars, the only reasonable assumption is: It has happened, numerous times" (See DWA post #38)

 

You see how this goes folks? First it sounds like fact for months, and now it's "alledged". I say foul doings here and I don't care how fast DWA dances or how far he backpeddles this kind of behavior is misleading and altering his position after the fact only makes it worse. I'm done with you DWA.

 

Edited March 16, 2014 by hiflier

[dmaker]

^^^Perzackly.

 

Note what is going on here:  scientists accept this because it is something they are comfortable with.

 

That a sample of hair someone sent them saying it came from a bigfoot did, in fact, come from a bigfoot?  Not so much.

 

The indisputable fact is:  many people have alleged unknown primate DNA from samples they sent in, with no reason to do so other than that it happened.

 

Until it is proven to me that they are all liars, the only reasonable assumption is:

 

It has happened, numerous times.

 

(If it were documented, silly, as in the testers went on the record, we'd have proven sasquatch by now.  Get how that works?)

I'm confused. Many, many times in many posts you proclaim how you accept absolutely nothing without supporting evidence. That is how you roll. Only with the evidence. Yet here we are supposed to take your word for something that, in your own words, has no supporting evidence other than "people" have alleged it.  That does not sound like very sound supporting evidence. In fact it sounds like none whatsoever. 

[Guest LarryP]

"I say foul doings here"

 

 

What "foul doings" are you referring to?

Edited March 16, 2014 by LarryP

[hiflier]

Hello LarryP,

 

If I've learned anything from DWA it is how to duck, dodge, and evade questions so.......

[Guest LarryP]

Speaking of ducking and dodging, I provided you a link regarding unknown human DNA.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Accusing others of ducking and dodging when they have responded to you six ways to Sunday is a time-honored method of ducking and dodging.