It Will Not Make Any Difference

[Guest]

Jeez louise, lighten up, it was just my poor attempt at humor. You did see the smiley face? 

OI I got a smiley face too

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, 

 

I read all your posts as do all members' posts. And I have a good respect for things that you write, but may I?

 

.....But he is not holding his breath because BF "does not exist". There are several scientists that are convinced of BF, that have provided evidence but that has done nothing to open up even the possibility in his mind........ I don't know who would be good enough to provide such evidence for him if several PHDs are not good enough to even open the possibility in his mind.......

 

 

I would like to switch "he", "dmaker", and "his", with "mainstream science", "it's" and "it" and see how dmaker holds up then. In my humble opinion "several scientists". Is not much more than say, 0.00000001% of all scientists. Hardly what I'd call a swaying number. It would seem that the "several scientists" have not been convincing to many of their PhD peers either. Just to put things into some perspective. To be a hardline skeptic is not possessinbg a flat earth mentality. The hardline keeps the reality of no proof at center stage- right where it belongs.  

 

"Several scientists" may be CONVINCED but the bottom line on that is this: they have no proof either. Love-15....dmaker. It's now his serve but, If I remember correctly, he rarely serves.

Edited August 26, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

SWWASASQUATCHWATCHPROJECT:

 

Actually, attempting however unsuccessfully to engage dmaker has had a purpose:  to show, the way scientists show things, by overwhelming evidence that you are right.

 

This topic has somehow fallen into the unfortunate pit of being one of those things that People Just Find Out As Kids.  Mom and Dad tell you Bigfoot Isn't Real, and you get sucked in.  Likely you don't care about any of the related topics anyway, so life gives you no reason to examine this belief.  (Even Carl Sagan - otherwise one of the best minds of his generation - fell in.)  It is - whether fortunate or not - alone among all these Things Mom And Dad Told You Aren't Real Like Boogeymen in that the evidence behaves like a real thing.  Just like Every American Is A Canoe Paddling Expert, Every American Knows This Isn't Real, and can spout on and on like an expert about it despite being transparently uninformed and totally uninterested in getting there.  We are exceptions to that rule.

 

The Sixties' hippie/back to the land movement may be a very lucky thing for science (whether or not for sasquatch remains to be seen).  It wound up getting a lot of people outside, and spurred a technological revolution that has lured even more.  A select handful of those people - probably at least tens of thousands more, actually, than would otherwise have been the case - go out there with the curiosity and intellectual equipment required to ask the proper questions about stuff like this.  Their number is increasingly represented among those filing sasquatch reports.  It hasn't hurt that the explosion of mass media and personal technology has allowed an access to databases and other information that, while not nearly keeping pace with people's experiences, has allowed people to make more sense more quickly out of what they see.  (The "Finding Bigfoot" Effect - every BFRO database update since that show started includes encounters in the current or immediately prior calendar year, something that never happened before - can be simply explained:  people having experiences know where to tell about it now.  The naïve 'alternative' explanations clearly don't cut it when one reads the reports.)

 

You and I and several others here are fortunate enough to be among that select handful of people.  It certainly makes life a more exciting, varied and intellectually rewarding experience. 

 

This will doubtless get responses expressing frustration.  I could think of more exciting, varied and intellectually rewarding ways to approach the topic.  They do require being informed.  Folks have been told what to read many times.  Yet I still await the first true critique of any of it by anyone - of any level of intellectual accomplishment - disagreeing with any of it.

 

And back to that OP:  this is the thing that makes one wonder what might happen when the potential for confirmation by a type specimen is at hand.  There is no topic like this one for illustrating with crystal clarity what a powerful force denial can be.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Ah yes, homilies are much more fun than admitting a lack of hard evidence. Keep it up. Maybe one day you can get a species declared by preachy homily alone. I doubt that though..

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

As much as I hate to say this I'm going to say it. You're doing more harm than good. There is not to much that is healthy when dancing around the dearth.....no, nonviable, element of circumstantial evidence. It's time for you to wake up. It's time for you to admit you cannot see dmakers side. The U.S. Government says there's not enough evidence to prove Alien existence. dmaker says there's not enough evidence to prove Bigfoot. Personally I don't see the issue. YOU on the other hand have failed to prove there is a Bigfoot regardless of pseudo-clever, flowery, dialogue.

I give you credit for sticking to your guns but the guns are shooting blanks. I agree that the reports, as well as the evidence, is speaking to a possible relict biped. It in know way however verifies that biped. Some like yourself, and even myself, will say that it does. But the fact remains that a hardline skeptic will win the argument every time. Get used to it. I did. I simply admitted that there's no scientific justification for the beast; no matter that I may wish it to be otherwise.

Edited August 26, 2014 by hiflier

[WSA]

Nobody in this instant conversation is saying there is enough evidence to prove BF exists. Again.  Are we really back to that same old, tired, misappreciation? Really? No, I mean, really.......?

 

Look, DWA is , for all his cicumlocution (because it is FUN to jab the jab-able...and y'all never disapoint) only voicing axioms of science 101. That it would be seriously disputed that it is the job of responsible science to follow evidence to proof is what keeps him coming back, time and again.  That it would be seriously disputed that science draws conclusions each and every day based on non-verifiable observations (go look up some theoretical physics if you think this is a "WHOA!" moment for you)  that keeps his energy up. Y'all just give him that, time and time again. You've become so entrenched in opposition to these non-disputable tenents that you're only making it all the more enjoyable for him. Do what you want, but I can tell you the guy has got way more calories for the job than you are going to muster. Trust me. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

For me it's fun.  For them it's work...a Sisyphean labor that they can never stop because they must be right.

 

It's cool, just being the rock against which all the silliness breaks.  If you're gonna argue, at least arm yourself with something outside of your own head.  Helps.  A ton.

 

Or...you can just be a teeth-gritting, miserable educational tackling dummy in a small box.  Your choice.  I prefer a world with possibilities. Particularly when all the evidence says they're more than that.

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

Nobody in this instant conversation is saying there is enough evidence to prove BF exists. Again.  Are we really back to that same old, tired, misappreciation? Really? No, I mean, really.......?

 

Look, DWA is , for all his cicumlocution (because it is FUN to jab the jab-able...and y'all never disapoint) only voicing axioms of science 101. That it would be seriously disputed that it is the job of responsible science to follow evidence to proof is what keeps him coming back, time and again.  That it would be seriously disputed that science draws conclusions each and every day based on non-verifiable observations (go look up some theoretical physics if you think this is a "WHOA!" moment for you)  that keeps his energy up. Y'all just give him that, time and time again. You've become so entrenched in opposition to these non-disputable tenents that you're only making it all the more enjoyable for him. Do what you want, but I can tell you the guy has got way more calories for the job than you are going to muster. Trust me. 

You approach this from the misconception that the evidence is compelling. It is not. You want to talk about Science 101, then I suggest the two of you get a much better handle on the basics like burden of proof and testable evidence before you continue to disparage mainstream science for dereliction and compare theoretical physics to biology.  Your science appears to come from Bindernagel--almost word for word the forward to The Discovery of the Sasquatch (2010). I would suggest broadening your horizons somewhat before you continue to look foolish.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Well, there's one choice.

 

"Here's a book where a scientist shows how to do science.  Put that down and accept our voodoo-hoax take on this before you look foolish."

 

Oh.  OH-kay.  I mean, he even cites the book that shows him up!

 

Then there's showing what's wrong with that book (which btw just showed me I was thinking about this precisely the right way).  Still waiting for that day...in the sweeet...bye 'n' bye...

 

Broadening one's horizons.  Yes.  As Gandhi once said about Western civilization, it would be a good idea.

 

(Like dip, WSA.  I just can't help it.  Feels so good between the cheek and gum.)

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I gave you two clear examples where you can improve. Burden of proof and testable evidence. You would be well served to lessen your emphasis on anecdotes and focus more on evidence that can be scientifically analyzed. That is if you ever want something more than the current level of discussion. 

 

One other suggestion if I may? You may want to abandon this patois that you implement in favor of plain English. I think most of us here would greatly appreciate not having to decipher what it is you think you are saying half the time. 

[JDL]

We all acknowledge that it will take conclusive evidence to "prove" squatch exist to larger community, but I think it true that scientists regularly accept a lesser amount of evidence in other cases to put time, effort, and money into documenting a species.

 

I often hear the extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims line, and it puts me off because declaring something extraordinary is not an objective scientific process.  It is subjective and based on presumption.  When someone uses the line they are essentially saying that they will not accept the same standard of evidence for a particular claim, because they do not believe that the claim can be true.

 

But it is what it is.

[Guest DWA]

Right.  It's a silly canard.  Claims require evidence.  

 

And the most extraordinary claims in this discussion are coming from the skeptics, who believe themselves intellectually free from having to specify what would make their comprehensive false positive barely plausible.

[SWWASAS]

Incorrigible and Hiflyer it is not merely semantics but I have to point out that skeptics like Dmaker contend there is "no" evidence.    There is a lot of evidence but it is not good enough to classify as evidence that is proof of existence.     He and others like him ignore the evidence that is not good enough to get main stream science to sit up and pay attention.     Evidence and evidence that is proof of existence are in different classes.      Even a good HD video taken close up would not be such proof.   But with analysis would probably convince a lot of scientists they better investigate and find something that is good enough to define existence.   But over and over skeptics seem to ignore what evidence does exist and you cannot even get them to acknowledge that there is some or even any.     Anyone whose belief system is so strong that they refuse to give any credit for the evidence that does not make the cut as proof, or who completely discounts all the witness reports without some acknowledgement, is hardly open minded.   

 

Skeptics like Incorrigible who states he would like to believe, I respect.   He like mainstream science have yet to see evidence that is conclusive to him personally.    But he leaves his decision open until that evidence comes along.   I don't see that in others.   I was like him when I started field work.    I had read everything I could, found the witness reports interesting, and Meldrums book with it's scientific approach was good enough to get me into the field.    My thinking was that since I live near the most active (according to sighting reports) BF area in the country I would give it a year of field work and see if I found anything.   Within 5 months I found a footprint, within 6 months I had an encounter.    At that time I assumed wrongly that there are a lot of them and could not understand how main stream science could ignore it.   I found my personal proof through my own experience.     I may not live to see acceptance by science,  I am in my 60s, but I know that BF exists.      I can know something exists because of experience but a skeptic cannot know something does not exist because of experience or physical proof.   Lack of existence leaves no physical evidence.     You don't find any hanging around near your computer.    If one BF exists anywhere in North America they are wrong.   I know there are at least three so there must be many more.       

 

That only a few scientists accept the possibility (even Meldrum will not go further than that) that BF exists is not at all surprising if you know the history of science.     When Einstein published his paper on general relativity he was the only one that believed it.  His theory was too simple and elegant to be correct.   Main stream science rejected it.  How dare someone challenge Newton?   One after one others began to conduct experiments trying to prove him wrong, and one after another, the experiments confirmed his theory.    Astronomical observations also confirmed it when they could see gravity bending light around large stars.      Now with reservations about the subatomic, that quantum theory better serves, most of the tenants of General Relativity are accepted by main stream science.  GPS would not work without understanding relativity.   We use it every day.     Meldrum and others have put their scientific careers on the table with BF.   I hope I live to see them vindicated because eventually they will.         

[WSA]

So, if you wanted to put this circular debate on a firmer foundation....we could start with this: 

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=44837

 

Just to ol' gullible me, this seems a fairly compelling invitation to wonder what exactly is going on here, and let's not even broach the relationship to other similar activities. Consider this a data set of "one." 

 

So, to my fellow BF enthusiasts in residence (Yes, dear opponents, that is YOU, by definition) what would you do to try and answer that question? What else would you want to know, who would you want to talk to and what questions would you ask of any of these people should you be permitted?  If it is all so easily dismissable, as you repeatedly claim, show us where that low fruit hangs in a role play hypothetical case of "explain the BF sighting." Go.... 

[Guest DWA]

That Meldrum and Bindernagel are as cautious as they are stems from one thing:  they have to be careful with the people they're dealing with, whom they consider essential to get on board.

 

Me?  I don't care and don't have to be polite.  Scientists should do their job.  Simultaneously shouting down and ignoring people who are demonstrating how to use science to unlock nature's secrets, while discouraging anyone who might even be curious or interested, is not only not doing one's job but sabotaging science, pure and simple.  

Edited August 26, 2014 by DWA