dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Is that what the "scientific community" told you? If so, specifically which members of the scientific community communicated that to you? Other than to nitpick and derail, what is your point Larry? Would you really expect me to list the name of every biologist in North America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 ^^^But if only there were a strong reason to take those talking points seriously. Unfortunellement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm not saying "toss out" all eye witness accounts. I don't care what you attribute the cause of the report to, be it misidentification, paraedolia, being hoaxed, hoaxing, hallucination, or outright lying, the bottom line is they are, all of them, still just anecdotes. They cannot be used to prove a species. One cannot apply the scientific method to an anecdote. They are just peoples claims and, as such, have a very limited use as evidence. They are too subject to the things I listed above. The reports show nothing conclusive other than people like to say they saw a bigfoot. I agree with all of the above and the rest of your post, but sightings are good for pinning down areas where Bigfoot might be if it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Other than to nitpick and derail, what is your point Larry? Would you really expect me to list the name of every biologist in North America? You're the one who claims to speak for the "scientific community". So surely you can provide the names of some members of the scientific community that have told you how they would react to proper evidence? If you're going to speak for them, that is only a fair question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) I agree with all of the above and the rest of your post, but sightings are good for pinning down areas where Bigfoot might be if it exists. Right, which is why I said I am not saying " toss them out". But to hold them up as just short of absolute proof is putting way, way too much emphasis on them and completely ignoring the role human nature and human perception play into things like this. Larry, I am not speaking on behalf of the scientific community. I am predicting a reaction based on previous history. Surely, you can see the difference? Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Now I see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 And stop calling him Shirley...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 You're the one who claims to speak for the "scientific community". So surely you can provide the names of some members of the scientific community that have told you how they would react to proper evidence? If you're going to speak for them, that is only a fair question. Well, no, he can't, because he doesn't really know what any of them say. I mean, does he ever offer anything but his own viewpoint? NO. In the very unlikely event that he "can," and isn't relying on I-can-just-FEEL-this which all of them are, when it comes down to it, he can't see, because he hasn't thought about it, why the opinion offered by that person/those people is uninformed, and doesn't matter. Right, which is why I said I am not saying " toss them out". But to hold them up as just short of absolute proof is putting way, way too much emphasis on them and completely ignoring the role human nature and human perception play into things like this. No one has ever said any more for them than 'you can't toss them out.' But you do, because you insist that human nature and human perception play a role in this that there is no serious evidence it plays at all. Larry, I am not speaking on behalf of the scientific community. I am predicting a reaction based on previous history. Surely, you can see the difference? No, actually, you vouch for them as proof that you are right, and you've done it many times here, and you know that. You continually invoke that uninformed consensus as if there is any reason for a truly serious person to take it seriously. Which of course there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I'm not here to fight with you or to change your mind, but you can't lump all sighting reports into neat little categories of misidentification or hallucination. Problem for you is, if one, just one, of these reports are true your entire position crumbles. Not that I am putting them all into the same categories but I can do so if the evidence warrants it. The lack of evidence for bigfoot does make it possible and even plausible that bigfoot is not real and all of the reports are the result of hallucination, mistaken observation or hoax. Still keeping my fingers crossed but that doesn't mean anything for or against bigfoot in my belief system. Forensic evidence (which the police and the technicians have) seal the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 No one has ever said any more for them than 'you can't toss them out.' But you do, because you insist that human nature and human perception play a role in this that there is no serious evidence it plays at all. You deny that there is evidence of hoaxing? You deny there is evidence of misidentification? As in, here is a bigfoot sample, please analyse it. Results? Dog, bear, cow, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 How about that mysterious "unknown primate" DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 There's evidence of kids dressing like zebras. Does that make the zebra not real? From a logical standpoint: precise same thing. No. The evidence REMAINS UNADDRESSED. As I have said...wait...2,004, 5...15..er...3,024 times now: the hoaxes are easily and effortlessly set aside from the live evidence, because they don't resemble the live evidence in any significant way. They are clearly incompetent artifacts of human manufacture. Toss them...and ...wow...that IS a huge pile, ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) There are also children that dress like hobgoblins. Should I be wary of those creatures? Your analogy accomplishes nothing. We know zebras exist. If someone wishes to dress like one it does not remove the classification. "As I have said...wait...2,004, 5...15..er...3,024 times now: " DWA You are not the final word on this subject. In other news, water is wet. Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 There are also children that dress like hobgoblins. Should I be wary of those creatures? Your analogy accomplishes nothing. We know zebras exist. If someone wishes to dress like one it does not remove the classification. Absolutely irrelevant, as anyone basically versed in logic knows, very well. SPOILER ALERT: dressing like something doesn't mean the something isn't real. "As I have said...wait...2,004, 5...15..er...3,024 times now: " DWA You are not the final word on this subject. In other news, water is wet. Unlike some, however, I can back my assertion up. Kinda essential. So I'll just let you look up where I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) " dressing like something doesn't mean the something isn't real." No one is saying anything like that, that is a straw man argument. The point was the people do hoax, it is human nature. You say human nature does not apply here. But the very fact that people dress up and hoax bigfoot proves your claim incorrect. It is proof that human nature does apply. It is not intended to be proof that bigfoot does not exist because someone dressed like one. Unlike some, however, I can back my assertion up. Excellent! Please do so. You have asserted multiple instances of unknown primate DNA result when alleged bigfoot samples were analyzed. Please demonstrate how you back up your assertions. Edited April 23, 2014 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts