It Will Not Make Any Difference

[Guest DWA]

Nope, you must SHOW IT.  Sorry, come on.

 

This is what I am saying about the scientific community in general.  If they're saying to me what the garbageman would, I have the right to dismiss what they say.

 

I'm spot on about science.  It is significant that in your efforts to show that I am not, you are showing the opposite.

 

Come on.

 

I think people should get read up before coming here and saying they know everything.  I know a lot.  But I am not getting paid to teach it.  

 

"Citations."  DID YOU READ WHAT I ASKED YOU TO READ?

[Guest]

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.    

Please elucidate with a citation of bigfoot prints being photographed or cast after a documented sighting? The closest example of such would be the PGF. However, since they did not keep thefilm running right up to the moment of finding the footprints, this does not qualify. The prints could easily have been made after the film was made. The same is true with any other story I've read. Not one has any documentation to verify the footprints were made by the alleged creature or that the creature even existed. This is a difficult technical problem for many to wrap their heads around but is all part of the verification process. A hoaxed bigfoot

reportwth hoaxed prints will look just like anything I've read in the BFRO and elsewhere.

Nope, you must SHOW IT.  Sorry, come on.

 

This is what I am saying about the scientific community in general.  If they're saying to me what the garbageman would, I have the right to dismiss what they say.

 

I'm spot on about science.  It is significant that in your efforts to show that I am not, you are showing the opposite.

 

Come on.

 

I think people should get read up before coming here and saying they know everything.  I know a lot.  But I am not getting paid to teach it.  

 

"Citations."  DID YOU READ WHAT I ASKED YOU TO READ?

I am not the one making a claim.You are. It behoves you to come up with theevidenceto convince me. I am an enthusiast and a skeptic. I make no decision about bigfoot in general at all. I have my opinions and hypotheses but I make no claims that require evidence. I do claim that the evidence is insufficient according to science but you disregard science and its need s for evidence of a certain quality level.

[Guest DWA]

[sigh]  Next time come with the assignment read.  You may be reading a lot, but you aren't apparently thinking about it enough or considering it in scientific terms.

 

Done, until you address my arguments, and "wave of hand" don't cut la moutarde.

Edited August 15, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

keep waving away all you want then, moutarde or no moutarde. Without evidence science can not make a valid decision. You refuse to proffer evidence via citation. I suspect  a lack of evidence  Funny you should tell me to read the assignment and then tell me that thinking is more important than reading a lot. Which is it? Too much reading or not enough?

Edited August 21, 2014 by chelefoot
GG 2

[Guest DWA]

keep waving away all you want then, moutarde or no moutarde. Without evidence science can not make a valid decision. You refuse to proffer evidence via citation. I suspect  a lack of evidence.  Funny you should tell me to read the assignment and then tell me that thinking is more important than reading a lot. Which is it? Too much reading or not enough?

It is either not enough reading (have you read what I told you to read?); not thinking about it enough; or some combination of the two.  Not knowing you, couldn't tell.  But it might also be either a lack of evidence

 

But Bindernagel and Meldrum over you sums it up.  They show their work; their thinking dovetailed with what I was already thinking; and their directly relevant expertise cinched the deal.

 

Adieu.  Way 'tis.  And emotional ad hominem is where the skeptics always end up.  Kind of a red flag; and I always use that term very advisedly.

Edited August 21, 2014 by DWA
GG 2

[Guest]

Oh so they said what you wanted to hear?

[Guest DWA]

[sigh] Not how someone acquainted with science would put it.

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.

Must have missed this one.

 

Never heard of the Green database before but they look to be fairly commercially oriented. True that doesn't mean ill intent but after recent such sites, one is leery.

 

BFRO, plenty of times.

 

I considered getting Raincoast Sasquatch and may still yet get it. From what I've read about the book, it doesn't seem to contradict any of my personal hypotheses about bigfoot.

 

As for the Delta Discovery, I might see if my sister in law could send me a copy or two that might contain stories of bigfoot but I fail to see how even an Alaskan paper would be a better source of information than my own local ones which also occasionally report bigfoot stories. and ufos and aliens and chupacabras. Granted Alaska is a likelier place of habitation for bigfoot as is much of the rest of the northwest American coast but like I said this only supports my thinking on bigfoot. My standards for scientific evidence are a separate matter and not the least bit changed by such readings.

"[sigh] Not how someone acquainted with science would put it."

 

Oh DWA, you are funny : )

 

That is precisely how someone of science would put it.

[Bonehead74]

Antfoot,

You've never heard of the Green (as in John...) database?!? And you've been into bigfoot since the seventies?

[Guest]

I believe I may have read some of his books in my youth in  the 70s but do not recall. some of the titles sound familiar. I may look them up in Amazon. I love old books from before the eighties, science and sci fi and pseudoscience as well. The database only went up in 2009 and no one sent me the memo. I read about this stuff and other things as well. bigfoot is not the only subject of interest in my life and my pursui of most of my fortean interests is more random ad unstructured. The data base does look interesting even though none of the reports I remember reading about from near my home town are in there apparently. I may have filled out the search form wrong. I'll try again when I'm more rested. Just getting in from work and got a date with my Mom in the morning. need sleep.

[Wingman1]

Antfoot, you do not know me so do not judge me! The astronomer I joked about is a lifelong friend of mine and we joke

around like that all of the time. Threatening to punch me in the nose is definitely not appreciated either and what makes

you think I would let you do that! You really should be careful about threatening people. The name calling is not appreciated

either as I am far from being ignorant! I have actually enjoyed reading many of your posts throughout this forum and found

them to be intelligent and thought provoking, but I am going to have to rethink that now. If a little humor between two good

friends and not directed at you rattles your cage that easily -- Wow! I don't even know what to say about that! Oh and by

way, I know what light wave measurements are. How in the world do you know that I am not an Astronomer in the first place?

I hold no animosity towards you at all over this and even wish you the best!

[Guest]

"Then I said well how did you take the measurements and then

had to listen to ten minutes of some mumbo-jumbo about mathematical equations, measurement of light waves and such. So I said okay, you and I will head down to the equator tomorrow and I will hold one end of the tape measure and you take the other end and walk your butt out to edge of the universe, right down the actual observed measurement and come on back! Then you can honestly tell me the edge is X amount of light years away ---- he  got up and left! No sense of humor at all!"

 

This seems to contradict what you said in you are claiming. If I misunderstood what you wrote then I am sorry for my chiding of you. However, if you meant what you wrote the way you wrote it or if you wrote incorrectly, then I do not really have much to apologize for. I still think your friend might be justified in punching you in the nose. Not that I am violent. Usually quite the reverse. "Punch him in the nose" was my mother's advice for dealing with bullies. Goading someone is a form of bullying. That's what it sounded like to me.

[Guest DWA]

I am of the belief that based on comments here, antfoot has missed far more than one memo.

 

"I have other interests" doesn't excuse coming on here and talking as if one knows all to those who - just reading the posts - know considerably more.  This is the constant bigfoot skeptic mistake...well, actually, there are scores of them, but all stem from this:  the belief that one doesn't have to read up before coming on here and duking it out with knowledgeable people who are steeped in the evidence; know how science works; and have shown times beyond counting that it isn't being properly applied to the evidence here.

 

Just sayin'.

 

And still waiting for antfoot to explain to me how all science works on the principle "amateurs must prove it before we will consider it."  Not, fortunately, holding my breath.

Edited August 17, 2014 by DWA

[Wingman1]

Antfoot - I added that joke when I responded one of DWA's posts. I have known my friend for over 40 years now and we are like brothers, and this is simply how we joke with each other. I realize that Astronomy and BF research have nothing in common and I used it in my response to DWA's post about the scientific community in general. I was not trying to goad my friend or bully him, that is ridiculous, and punching someone is NOT the best way settle something! although that might be true if we were still in High school. I have read many posts on this forum that are far worse than what I said, but you won't see me making assumptions about someone I have never met before. That's not how I roll! I learned long ago that everyone's sense of humor is different, but it is still humor and I have no business splitting hairs and over analyzing anyone's comments and assume that the person is a jerk because I didn't like their joke. I can understand where you are coming from on this, but as I said before, you do not know

me or anything about me, so please don't judge me! Hell, I will even hold up the white flag here and move on.

[Guest]

moving on then

I am of the belief that based on comments here, antfoot has missed far more than one memo.

 

"I have other interests" doesn't excuse coming on here and talking as if one knows all to those who - just reading the posts - know considerably more.  This is the constant bigfoot skeptic mistake...well, actually, there are scores of them, but all stem from this:  the belief that one doesn't have to read up before coming on here and duking it out with knowledgeable people who are steeped in the evidence; know how science works; and have shown times beyond counting that it isn't being properly applied to the evidence here.

 

Just sayin'.

 

And still waiting for antfoot to explain to me how all science works on the principle "amateurs must prove it before we will consider it."  Not, fortunately, holding my breath.

I do not believe that I have ever claimed to "know all." If I don't know something, I usually preface what I might say with the fact that I don't know. I also have the humility to admit that I may be mistaken and can be fooled. There are many here who do not do that DWA. Like others here I also have a life. Bigfoot is not the only interest and there are other fortean interests that I pursue. Having a job and friends and family takes some time from my reading and viewing schedule. You've read plenty of bigfoot reports but from your postings I find it hard to believe that you pursue any real scientific literature. Despite not being a scientist or an especially smart guy, I have managed to learn about ecology and evolution and anthropology. Enough to know that some of the comments on this forum are wrong. One does not need to be an authority on bigfoot reports to be able to correct someone who thinks he is.