It Will Not Make Any Difference

[Yuchi1]

Like clockwork.

 

Or, Milk of Magnesia.

 

As the subject is indeed, in the margins of pseudo science, it stands to reason that a lot of pseudo scientific banter would be thrown around regarding such.

[Guest DWA]

This is only what people think who are demonstrably not thinking about this much.

 

The circus is pseudoscience.  The evidence is live, and to those of us whose experience of the outdoors and understanding of the ways of animals (and people) equip us to understand it, compelling.  We just aren't sure what is bringing everyone else to 'conclusions' that seem to explicitly ignore what they are uncomfortable confronting.

[Yuchi1]

I'm certain they would. Fact remains though that at least here there is, if you look with care, a core of generally sensible and informative discussion (dare I say leaning to the sceptical?) rather than the touting of strange views with no critique.

 

Fact also remains that multiple media stories were ran on the subject with the artifacts (allegedly) being loaded onto a train bound for the Smithsonian, only to vanish in thin air. Anyone that thinks the United States government isn't capable of felonious deceit, probably should get a reality check as the record is rife with such behaviours.

[Guest]

 

When scientists are presented with suitable evidence, they will study it. Suitable evidence has not yet been presented. A million reports is not evidence no matter how reputable the witnesses. They are anecdotes.

 

This isn't true.  The anecdotes meet the requirements of compelling evidence, as the scientists who understand this have clearly shown.    Moreover they dovetail with the physical evidence.  Evidence like this has been run to ground since before "evidence" and "science" were words.  The scientists who aren't studying it, when they are asked why, convey their inability to understand what's going on more than anything else.  This is actually less surprising than most non-scientists might think.  Most scientists really don't understand how science works, outside of the narrow corners of the field in which they operate; and their statements on this topic baldly show this.

 

Physical evidence has been material that can be hoaxed pretty easily and is known to have been fake previously. Any such evidence is tainted by that. Do not blame science for that.

 

This isn't true, and I don't blame science.  I blame scientists.  Big difference.  Scientists who have analyzed the footprints have shown pretty compellingly (1) how they cross-reference impeccably with the anecdotal evidence (and the film we have of a sasquatch) and (2) how hard they would be to fake.

 

Native American history is anything BUT clear. Like most ancient stories that were not written down for thousands of years, the histories of Native Americans likely bear little resemblance to what really happened.

 

One thing is really clear:  those things on which large numbers of Native Americans agree with large numbers of non-Natives are, pretty much without exceptions, real things.  There are no historical cases of "legends" jumping cultures like this.  One can't dismiss as "Native legends" things that compelling evidence indicates are being seen by non-Natives as well.

 

And the stories that don't match up with your interpretation of bigfoot are obviously false. You can find corroborating evidence for any story everywhere you look if you look for it. Most NA stories do not read like bigfoot stories to me. They all have different names and descriptions and events. Most modern reports are of something big and dark disappearing into the woods. NA stories usually involve tribal interactions as opposed to mere individual interactions. Wars, kidnappings, cannibalism, mixed blood children etc. Nothing like the reports of today. So how can you say they arethe same thing? or that they corroborate each other? They are not the same thing at all.

Well, actually, the scientist showed he doesn't understand science very well.  And can't discuss it very easily with laymen.

 

(A scientist who would punch someone in the nose can be dismissed as emotional to the extent that it clouds his vision.)

 

It's very obvious that almost no astronomical "proofs" would be so accepted by zoology.  Astronomy, like paleontology, uses proxy measures to "take us" places none of us will ever be able to go.  Woulda been easy enough to say this without getting mad, but he decided to be either ignorant or a class A jerk about it.

 

This happens constantly in this field - the skeptic gets mad and offers a punch in the face.  Having no evidence, no argument, no way to explain oneself, does do this to people.

 

" I always find it astounding when an ignorant person considers his opinion to matter more than the opinion of the man or woman who actually studies the matter at hand."

 

Just how we proponents feel about the scientists who disagree with us.  Exactly.

Wingman  tried doing a "gotcha" on someone who is not prepared to do battle with someone too ignorant to understand the nature of the scientific method. More scientists should interact with the public to help them understand the importance of science, but technically, it's not his job. The public should learn more about science and how it is conducted because it is useful and important for making informed decisions. Proponents could benefit from this as could bigfootology in general. Learn to talk to the scientists and they might then understand if your data is real evidence or not.

Edited August 21, 2014 by chelefoot
GG2, R1

[Guest]

Having retired from an investigative law enforcement background Antfoot, I'd call footprints with dermal impressions verified by an expert witness, hundreds of credible eye witnesses, wall pictures, totem figures and hair samples not given to any known North American primate "Suitable evidence".  This level of evidence has and will stand in the criminal and civil courts of America, yet your statements are a prime manifestation of the slanted, uneven playing field established science continues to hold to.  Not my opinion, but nearly 40 years of "Been there done that"!  You or no one else will change my educated and experienced opinion on this.  There is a deliberate effort by science to avoid this subject! 

You don;t have that. No footprint has the load of evidence you are claiming here. No footprint has a verifiable history that allows us to trace it to a bigfoot. Not one. Footprints can and have been faked. This is a part of our knowledge about footprints. That alone makes footprints suspect as evidence even if 99% of them were made by bigfoots. Until we have documented evidence of a bigfoot making a footprint we have no real evidence that any of these prints are real bigfoot evidence. Casting artifacts can and do make ridges that can be mistaken as dermal ridges. The reason footprints and finger prints can be used in courts is due to the body of verified evidence that came before. We do not have that with bigfoot footprints.

 

As far as science slanting the playing field. What is wrong with slanting the field to verify the truth? That is the bias. Science changes the text books regularly because the truth came out due to the vigorous treatment that evidence and hypotheses receive. To the uninitiated, this looks unfair but all successful theories have come through this same crucible.

[Guest DWA]

And the stories that don't match up with your interpretation of bigfoot are obviously false. You can find corroborating evidence for any story everywhere you look if you look for it. Most NA stories do not read like bigfoot stories to me. They all have different names and descriptions and events. Most modern reports are of something big and dark disappearing into the woods. NA stories usually involve tribal interactions as opposed to mere individual interactions. Wars, kidnappings, cannibalism, mixed blood children etc. Nothing like the reports of today. So how can you say they arethe same thing? or that they corroborate each other? They are not the same thing at all.

 

Of course they are!  You are just misrepresenting them.  This can be cured by reading them.  Natives and non-Natives are describing the precise.same.animal.  I know this for a fact; I have read many Native accounts.

 

Here's how the scientific method works; one searches for the thing in the middle of that normal curve, not the outliers.  "Skeptics" habitually commit the straw man fallacy; they insist that the accounts that don't fit the vast bulk of the evidence must be considered equally with the other evidence.  No they must not.  They are tossed, and the search concentrates on what is forming the bulk of that normal curve.

Wingman  tried doing a "gotcha" on someone who is not prepared to do battle with someone too ignorant to understand the nature of the scientific method. More scientists should interact with the public to help them understand the importance of science, but technically, it's not his job. The public should learn more about science and how it is conducted because it is useful and important for making informed decisions. Proponents could benefit from this as could bigfootology in general. Learn to talk to the scientists and they might then understand if your data is real evidence or not.

 

No, the scientists are not properly engaging the evidence.  Done.

 

When you get red and stalk off and can't take a little fun, no, I'm not looking to you as the offended party.   I could have shown Wingman clearly and calmly, while enjoying his humor, why that evidence should be taken seriously, and I'm not even a scientist.  I mean, as that term is commonly applied.

 

It's the bulk of mainstream scientists, who don't think the evidence for sasquatch passes muster, who "should learn more about science and how it is conducted."  There is nothing, but this, that presents this pattern of evidence that we have not confirmed.  To anyone who knows "about science and how it is conducted," that's a blazing marker.  For those who don't - mainly because they haven't even bothered to look at it, and remember their comments show this - it's not.  Problem here is that most of the latter are techies speaking from what they have been carefully taught, including the denial pounded into their heads, not true scientists always open to the evidence.

 

The only proper scientific approach is to show why Meldrum and Bindernagel are wrong.  (Or to wish them good luck, and if you have nothing to contribute, clam up until the proof.)  This has not even begun to be attempted.  When you claim to be a scientist, and cannot show me you have even considered the evidence but restrict yourself to things the garbageman could say...BIG RED FLAG.

Edited August 21, 2014 by DWA
To remove violation in quote

[Guest DWA]

No footprint has the load of evidence you are claiming here. No footprint has a verifiable history that allows us to trace it to a bigfoot. Not one. Footprints can and have been faked.

 

None of this matters.  People with directly relevant knowledge are saying that a large number of prints - scattered in locations continent-wide that correspond to habitat based on sightings - come from an anomalalous primate, and that the technical skill and equipment to make them have never existed.  More than enough, from a proper scientific point of view.  WAY more.  One doesn't reject compelling evidence because it is not proof.

 

This is a part of our knowledge about footprints. That alone makes footprints suspect as evidence even if 99% of them were made by bigfoots.

 

No it does not.  If the evidence can be followed, and it can, it should be.

 

Until we have documented evidence of a bigfoot making a footprint we have no real evidence that any of these prints are real bigfoot evidence.

 

Tell that to the people who have followed inconclusive evidence to proof since before there was science.

 

As far as science slanting the playing field. What is wrong with slanting the field to verify the truth? That is the bias.

 

When scientists don't consider evidence due to pre-conceived notions:  that is the bias.

Edited August 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

 

And the stories that don't match up with your interpretation of bigfoot are obviously false. You can find corroborating evidence for any story everywhere you look if you look for it. Most NA stories do not read like bigfoot stories to me. They all have different names and descriptions and events. Most modern reports are of something big and dark disappearing into the woods. NA stories usually involve tribal interactions as opposed to mere individual interactions. Wars, kidnappings, cannibalism, mixed blood children etc. Nothing like the reports of today. So how can you say they arethe same thing? or that they corroborate each other? They are not the same thing at all.

 

Of course they are!  You are just misrepresenting them.  This can be cured by reading them.  Natives and non-Natives are describing the precise.same.animal.  I know this for a fact; I have read many Native accounts.

 

Here's how the scientific method works; one searches for the thing in the middle of that normal curve, not the outliers.  "Skeptics" habitually commit the straw man fallacy; they insist that the accounts that don't fit the vast bulk of the evidence must be considered equally with the other evidence.  No they must not.  They are tossed, and the search concentrates on what is forming the bulk of that normal curve.

Wingman  tried doing a "gotcha" on someone who is not prepared to do battle with someone too ignorant to understand the nature of the scientific method. More scientists should interact with the public to help them understand the importance of science, but technically, it's not his job. The public should learn more about science and how it is conducted because it is useful and important for making informed decisions. Proponents could benefit from this as could bigfootology in general. Learn to talk to the scientists and they might then understand if your data is real evidence or not.

 

No, the scientists are not properly engaging the evidence.  Done.

 

When you get red and stalk off and can't take a little fun, no, I'm not looking to you as the offended party.   I could have shown Wingman clearly and calmly, while enjoying his humor, why that evidence should be taken seriously, and I'm not even a scientist.  I mean, as that term is commonly applied.

 

It's the bulk of mainstream scientists, who don't think the evidence for sasquatch passes muster, who "should learn more about science and how it is conducted."  There is nothing, but this, that presents this pattern of evidence that we have not confirmed.  To anyone who knows "about science and how it is conducted," that's a blazing marker.  For those who don't - mainly because they haven't even bothered to look at it, and remember their comments show this - it's not.  Problem here is that most of the latter are techies speaking from what they have been carefully taught, including the denial pounded into their heads, not true scientists always open to the evidence.

 

The only proper scientific approach is to show why Meldrum and Bindernagel are wrong.  (Or to wish them good luck, and if you have nothing to contribute, clam up until the proof.)  This has not even begun to be attempted.  When you claim to be a scientist, and cannot show me you have even considered the evidence but restrict yourself to things the garbageman could say...BIG RED FLAG.

 

So you think I've never read of any of these Native American stories? I've been reading them since I first became interested in bigfoot back in the seventies. I DO know what I'm talking about. Show me one, ONE, native American story where a big dark shape ambles into the woods. Just one. There aren't any. Show me a modern story post 1960, that has a kidnapped human or warlike beasts storming a village or hairy cannibalistic primates eating Americans.

Edited August 21, 2014 by chelefoot
To edit violation in quote

[Guest DWA]

Nope, you aren't.  Ever read Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch?  Ever really read the BFRO database?  Ever read reports from the AK Native paper Delta Discovery?  Ever really read the Green database?

 

They're describing the same animal non-Natives are seeing.  Same.Animal.

 

Your last sentence:  strawman fallacy.

Edited August 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

 

No footprint has the load of evidence you are claiming here. No footprint has a verifiable history that allows us to trace it to a bigfoot. Not one. Footprints can and have been faked.

 

None of this matters.  People with directly relevant knowledge are saying that a large number of prints - scattered in locations continent-wide that correspond to habitat based on sightings - come from an anomalalous primate, and that the technical skill and equipment to make them have never existed.  More than enough, from a proper scientific point of view.  WAY more.  One doesn't reject compelling evidence because it is not proof.

 

This is a part of our knowledge about footprints. That alone makes footprints suspect as evidence even if 99% of them were made by bigfoots.

 

No it does not.  If the evidence can be followed, and it can, it should be.

 

Until we have documented evidence of a bigfoot making a footprint we have no real evidence that any of these prints are real bigfoot evidence.

 

Tell that to the people who have followed inconclusive evidence to proof since before there was science.

 

As far as science slanting the playing field. What is wrong with slanting the field to verify the truth? That is the bias.

 

When scientists don't consider evidence due to pre-conceived notions:  that is the bias.

 

DWA, again we come to point where you demonstrate an unfailing incomprehension of science and how it works. The very process by which you have a computer to type these little rants out to the rest of the universe and that gave you vaccines and electricity and etc couldn'tpossibly know anything useful. Science succeeds because it works even if there are a few scientists who don't want their world-view shaken, there are plenty of others who want to shake world-views. Everything you said above is twaddle. Not one bit is true of science. Scientists who break out of the box become famous and financially better off (usually). There is no incentive to remain quiet about anything in science. Politically and religiously may be different matters but science has no loyalty to falsehoods.

[Guest DWA]

Nope, I've got it.  And you're getting emotional.  That is never good.

 

Address my arguments.  Constantly moving/crossing/changing the elevation of the goal posts is not working.

 

Address my arguments.

Edited August 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Nope, you aren't.  Ever read Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch?  Ever really read the BFRO database?  Ever read reports from the AK Native paper Delta Discovery?  Ever really read the Green database?

 

They're describing the same animal non-Natives are seeing.  Same.Animal.

 

Your last sentence:  strawman fallacy.

You said native American stories nd modern stories describe the same creature. Reading them shows they are very different stories and not atall the same. Most native American stories do not even mention them being hairy or having large feet. Howling voices are also not mentioned nor are stick structures or gifting. Much of the modern format is not the same as the legends of native Americans. Most of the similarities are derived from individual stories and much more is read into those minor features than is warranted.

[SWWASAS]

There are many BF observed by witness, usually walking away,  whereupon the human observer, examines the ground,  observes, photographs, sometimes casts, and otherwise documents the footprints.    So several of Antfoots statements are incorrect about no direct tie between BF and footprints.    If the BF was human in costume, wearing stompers, that would be pretty evident.     Footprints are pretty rare.      The forest floor covers BF tracks pretty well.    Add in the fact that when I have found footprints, it was very evident that the BF that left them tried very hard not to do that.   So the creature seems intent on avoiding leaving footprint evidence.        That does not necessarily indicate human like intelligence but perhaps BF are intelligent enough to use footprints to locate game.   If they do, then they would have made the connection of footprints leading anyone looking right to them.    

[Guest DWA]

You said native American stories nd modern stories describe the same creature. Reading them shows they are very different stories and not atall the same. Most native American stories do not even mention them being hairy or having large feet. Howling voices are also not mentioned nor are stick structures or gifting. Much of the modern format is not the same as the legends of native Americans. Most of the similarities are derived from individual stories and much more is read into those minor features than is warranted.

Did you read what I told you to read?

[Guest]

Nope, I've got it.  And you're getting emotional.  That is never good.

 

Address my arguments.  Constantly moving/crossing/changing the elevation of the goal posts is not working.

 

Address my arguments.

All of the four arguments you presented are without basis. How can I argue with them if I have nothing to address? Present some citations and perhaps I can then deal with them.