Guest DWA Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) "Bigfoot reports are more like UFO reports in reportage..." No they're not. And we have indeed gone over this many times here. Bigfoot reports come from where a primatologist would expect such an animal to be. And just as bear and wapiti regularly visit city suburb and supermarket, just check out YouTube, so does the big guy. Just that you are gonna get way fewer to admit they saw one. You wouldn't expect a giant man of the woods in a suburb? Well, stop calling it something absurd, and realize that the facts don't care what you expect. Edited August 23, 2014 by DWA
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 Bigfoot has been reported from every state in the union and all of Canada. I do mean every state. Somewhere on this forum I had posted two Hawaiian reports of bigfoot. I can't seem to access that far back now though. Not sure why. If bigfoot can be reported in Hawaii, then what kind of biogeography does bigfoot have? What kind of habitat does bigfoot require? An animal that can be found in the arctic wastes and tropical forests and roadsides and gardens to boot is an extraordinary one indeed. No biome needed? Next we'll be finding them in the ocean and on the moon. They are everywhere humans are. Unlike bears and wapiti.
Guest DWA Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) antfoot: Hawaiian reports of bigfoot? Two? Now that's UFO. Discounted. Easy. You need to read the reports, clearly. Check out the distribution of black bear, a pretty close ecological correlative. They're still expanding their range. This is a lot smarter animal, and no one ever hunted them because they "aren't real." Edited August 23, 2014 by DWA
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/10821-does-a-bigfootufo-connection-exist/page-14?hl=hawaii#entry569124 antfoot antfootChiye-tanka Members 766 posts Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:28 AM http://www.bigfooten...bs/aikanaka.htmhttp://www.joanocean.../sasquatch.htmlhttp://thewheelergro...foot-in-makiki/http://bigfoothawaii.wordpress.com/just look up bigfoot and hawaii and they'll come. Edited August 23, 2014 by antfoot
Guest DWA Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Let's just say I'm not looking in Hawaii on the strength of that. So there we are, all these reports. Last I checked, science didn't chalk something up as proven or debunked based on somebody's guess. Until somebody finds out what's causing them, people's guesses aren't cutting ice with me. Edited August 23, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Dmaker You truly are trying to get a handle on this are you not,but can not make sence of it all. There is no way that I will ever prove what I have expierance to you unless you were there. But you know what I am ok with that and i am ok if i have been put on ignore by a lo of others. So what that i can not prove to you what i saw or that no one else can either. That is just the way it is and like the topic of the tread says it will make no difference one way or the other. May be this has been done by some on seen authority that we have no understanding. But still it does seem to differ that you do seem to be here for some reason ,that you do have some belief that this creature does exist. Other wise you would have stopped a long time ago and never become a member and payed your $20 or so seeking answers. See that where i am different, i have already found those answers to satisfy what i have been looking for. So in a way there is no need for me to pay the $20 unless i am willing to look at being insulted for telling the truth.I am here to know that I am not alone and to let others know the same. There would be nothing more special to me then to bring in a body and to prove to all how right I am. But that would just be a selfish act and would be one I am not willing to commit. SB, I have no belief that the creature exists. There is nothing but a complete failure of the physical evidence to support the claim. Any time testable evidence has been tested it has failed to support the bigfoot claim. Why a group of people would so willingly ignore what seems to me to be painfully obvious is beyond me. Perhaps that is the interest or question that keeps me involved here and in this topic. Not a biological question. That has been answered time and time again, but proponents refuse to accept the reality. But I do believe there is a large sociological question that remains that is pretty fascinating. dmaker: you are wrong about the least objective person on this forum. That would be the person who can't find a scrap of evidence to back up his thesis. I'm looking at you, dmaker...oh, then there's whether I would strictly care what someone who doesn't bother to inform himself about a topic before going off for thousands of posts would think of objectivity, facts, or me. I use your posts as educational tackling dummies for the newbies and the established scientists who may have gotten off the rails and need some counsel. I'm not arguing with you. One doesn't argue with a person one knows is wrong. One just points out the puddle of goo in the road and guides folk around it. And Inc1...no, I just can't open those anymore. DWA, you, not surprisingly, display a continuing confusion as to the burden of proof. It is up to proponents to prove the claim. It is not up to anyone, skeptic or otherwise, to disprove the claim. I am surprised that a self proclaimed scientist such as yourself does not understand this simple concept. Science has done its bit when offered the proper chance. As in analyzing testable evidence. This is part of the scientific process. Make a claim, then produce testable evidence to support that claim. It is then up to science to attempt to falsify that claim by analyzing the evidence. Every time this has happened, the evidence has failed to support the claim. Science does not have to, and will not, respond to anecdotes and other untestable, ambiguous evidence. This is not a failure to bring evidence to backup a thesis, this is simply the way these things happen. In the face of nothing but utter failure of the evidence to support the claim, one can easily deduce the source of most alleged bigfoot evidence. This is not a thesis, as you say, it is simply offering an alternative explanation since the tested evidence failed to support the claim. If the evidence does not support the claim, then something else must be the source. In the case of bigfoot, tested evidence has always lead to human hoaxing or human error. That is not a thesis, that is simply the reality of where things stand right now. Continue to bring testable evidence, as in scientific evidence that is amenable to testing ( i.e. not anecdotes), and it will be tested. History has shown that this evidence will most likely fail time and time again to support the original claim. Edited August 23, 2014 by dmaker
Will Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 What you're missing dmaker is the up close and personal sightings many on this forum have experienced, the only explanation to you it would seem is they are all liars. I suppose for me as I've gotten to know some on here, they seem quite sincere and credible with what they saw. Now granted some of the habitation people on here seem to have fantastic stories which should be able to be backed up, sadly they aren't willing, but for the ones that have seen them up close, I'm not ready to discount them yet.
dmaker Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Will, you are referring to personal anecdotes. The role of anecdotes in science is not that of testable evidence. Your strawman is easily defeated. I never once said that all bigfoot witnesses are liars. I have many times offered plausible explanations for their sighting. In the end, though, it matters not what I, or anyone, thinks of the anecdotes and their veracity. Anecdotes cannot be tested. Period. Great stories but evidence of nothing more than someone claims that they think they saw a bigfoot. Are some lying? Maybe. But it doesn't really matter in the end. Edited August 23, 2014 by dmaker
chelefoot Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 . I think it matters. It matters to people who come here to share an experience they have had with people who will listen with an open mind and not ridicule them, call them liars/hoaxers, tell them they are hallucinating, on drugs, or crazy. Those folks don't come here for proof. They don't need proof. They need to discuss their experience with others who understand and can help them make sense of it. This is not a research forum. Yes, tough questions are asked, even by me sometimes, as they should be. But some witnesses know what they saw without a doubt in their minds. They don't need me, you, or anyone else to tell them what it was or wasn't. They just need to talk about it. 3
dmaker Posted August 23, 2014 Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Chele, I don't direct my comments at any one person. I don't jump into witness threads to tell them they are wrong. I only participate in threads that have a relation to the larger question. I stay away from threads started by someone to discuss their sighting. In fact, I only really get involved anymore in response to what I perceive as the nonsensical postings of certain individuals defaming science in general from a self proclaimed position of authority. If asked, such as will did, what I think might be the source of someones sighting, I will respond with my opinion. But I don't go around dumping my opinion into every thread. Edited August 23, 2014 by dmaker 1
Guest DWA Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) ^^^Um, you're wrong, and evidence shows it. (I was talking about every single sentence of that post.) The "larger question" is how deep in denial people can get about something right under their noses. Quite the cautionary tale for humanity being spun in the nonsensical postings of certain individuals. Edited August 24, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Evidence shows it, does it? Care to point out for us, if you could please, an example of scientifically testable evidence for bigfoot that has, after analysis, has supported the claim? Or are you, as usual, content to sit back on your unsupported proclamations?
Guest DWA Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 ^^^^In your world. The rest of us kinda go with that 'evidence' thing...
Will Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) I never once said that all bigfoot witnesses are liars. Maybe so, but it really is your only option for someone who has claimed a face to face. Edited August 24, 2014 by will
Recommended Posts