dmaker Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Pronounced and proven are two different things. Things are pronounced here every day. Almost never proven however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Yes, and some of us know how proof happens. And some of us, well, don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) IMO, there appears to be some confusion as to the distinction between evidence and proof. A single piece of evidence, in and of itself rarely constitutes, proof. A collection of verifiable evidence can lead to proof. Eyewitness evidence is suspect, at best. To wit: Local LE did safety training at a firm I was with several years ago. They showed us a vignette of an armed robbery and then immediately asked us to describe basic items. Of the 19 of us in the room, there were 11 different versions as to what color the getaway car was and some of these people had been through this training many times in years past. It was eye opening, to say the least. Also, a woman was released from prison last week after DNA evidence exonerated her from a conviction for which she had been incarcerated the past 25 years! Yep, it was eyewitness evidence that sent her up in the original trial. This case is no fluke as it has happened over and over as DNA evidence has trumped human observations. Edited June 2, 2014 by Yuchi1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Just read through this... Bipto has the patience of a saint. Keep up the good work, guys. Don't let 'em grind you down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Eyewitness evidence is suspect, at best. .... Also, a woman was released from prison last week after DNA evidence exonerated her from a conviction for which she had been incarcerated the past 25 years! Yep, it was eyewitness evidence that sent her up in the original trial. This case is no fluke as it has happened over and over as DNA evidence has trumped human observations. Which only highlights that human observations are not proof. It is not true that they are not compelling evidence. That they are not proof is why we have jury trials and the scientific method...which kicks in when human observations are (1) numerous and (2) consistent. As they are for the subject under discussion here. Edited June 2, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 If human eye witnesses cannot ever constitute proof then why did you just proclaim them the strongest form of evidence? Wouldn't something that can actually be used as proof, i.e. DNA, a bone, or a specimen, be far more powerful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Perhaps it's because DWA is using eyewitness testimony as evidence and not claiming it's proof, I believe it's been mentioned before they are not interchangeable terms. IE a bigfoot body is proof of bigfoot's existence, seeing someone rob a bank and the statment to police is considered evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) DNA is evidence. A finger bone is evidence. Together they may constitute proof. Each of them alone is a piece of evidence. An eye witness report is an anecdote, a very weak type of evidence. Put 2 of them together or 2,000 and you still do not have anything near to proof. Now, tell me, which do you think is the stronger piece of evidence? It's worth noting that DWA is also claiming that the volume and consistency of the anonymous witness reports are strong enough to make proof irrelevant. This is, of course, a ridiculous notion, but hey it does a great job of trying to distract people from WHY we have no actual proof of bigfoot yet. However, this is the NAWAC thread and we should probably stop derailing it with side line argument. Edited June 2, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 That's why eyewitness evidence has long been established in both the judiciary as well as law enforcement as the least reliable form of evidence. The "moment" is a rush, the likes of which you have never before experienced. Lot's of people out there that "think" they've had an encounter and only a few that actually have....as, it changes you, forever. I think eyewitnesses are better at determining a physical form of an animal that is moving than they are at taking in the finer details when witnessing a crime. There are a plethera of things they will not log in their memory in the heat of the moment unless they remember to do so. There is a lot fewer things to register when witnessing wildlife and their eyes will be locked on the subject in a bigfoot encounter. So physical form, size, mode of locomotion, color, clothing or not wouldn't likely escape them unless it's just too far away, poor lighting etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 A bone is proof af a creature, it is not evidence. Please show me a single circumstance where a bone is not proof of a skeletal animal. Ditto with DNA, it is proof of a living organism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Keep up the good work, guys. Don't let 'em grind you down Thanks, man. Don't worry about the grind. There's the real world and then there's this place. I can keep them straight! DNA is evidence. A finger bone is evidence. Actually, I'd call them both proof. A properly collected and maintained DNA sample large enough to allow multiple repeatable results is pretty damned conclusive. A bone even more so. It's worth noting that DWA is also claiming that the volume and consistency of the anonymous witness reports are strong enough to make proof irrelevant. I don't read that in what he's said at all. The evidence represented by the sightings should be sufficient to initiate a concerted search for proof. But that's not happened in the case of wood apes for many decades. FWIW, I'd be happy with a chunk out of a wood ape. Even a finger. That would be the holotype. Edited June 3, 2014 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 "Actually, I'd call them both proof. A properly collected and maintained DNA sample large enough to allow multiple repeatable results is pretty damned conclusive. A bone even more so. " Bipto Bipto, in your opinion, what do you consider to be evidence and what is proof in regard to bigfoot? DNA=proof? A finger bone=proof? Skat=? Hair=? Tracks=? Clear video footage if ever a thing were to exist= And so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Physical remains are proof. Everything else is evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Thousands of read reports are not proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 You go, bipto! That's called reading comprehension. Always good to be able to represent what I SAID. Even not using the same words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts