Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[Guest DWA]

^^^The continual inability to separate proof from compelling evidence that's convinced every scientist who's given it a serious look that it's serious evidence of an animal.

 

There are scientists.  And there are technicians.  Most "scientists" are the latter; and here they are out of their depth.

[Guest guillaume]

I need to see the proof of the null set.

That's simple enough.  The null set is just a way to express zero.  For example:

 

The number of bigfoot fossils: zero.

The number of bigfoot artifacts collected during thousands of years of human habitation and exploration of North America: zero.

The number of bigfoot anecdotes that have led to objective evidence for the existence of bigfoot: zero.

Examples of confirmed bigfoot DNA: zero.

The number of scientists whose affirmations of the existence of bigfoot are not politely ignored by thousands of their peers: zero.

Plaster casts of bigfoot tracks that can't best be explained as hoaxes, pranks, or misidentifications: zero.

Films or photos of bigfoot that can't best be explained as hoaxes, pranks, or misidentifications: zero.

Regular bigfoot sightings by any group that can't be dismissed due to lack of objective evidence: zero.

 

Perhaps you get the idea.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^The continual inability to separate proof from compelling evidence that's convinced every scientist who's given it a serious look that it's serious evidence of an animal.

 

There are scientists.  And there are technicians.  Most "scientists" are the latter; and here they are out of their depth.

But the OP was not about compelling evidence.  It was directed towards those who claim they can provide proof but do not because of some need to protect the species.  In light of the history of Bigfoot research I have taken this as just another way of ducking the issue of proof yet giving the claimant the room to boast of such proof.  Evidence is not proof.

[Guest]

Technicians = People who study things I find boring.

 

@Crowlogic, no matter what the OP said, it has to be reduced to the same general topic.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

 

Youre ignoring the context there, Crow. Stan was accusing me of objecting, when all I was doing was pointing out that Antfoot's proclamations were nothing more than subjective opinions. That's not an objection, it's just a simple observation.

 

 

 

Umm, I would like to know which proclamations are subjective opinion that I needed to claim were subjective opinion? Most of what I said was NOT subjective opinion but knowledge. The heart stuff? knowledge. Let's get specific and perhaps I can clear things up for you. SOME might well be subjective and opinion but most not so much.

Crowlogic:  I need to see the proof of the null set.  And if "you can't prove a negative," which is no excuse, then you have no evidence for your proposition.

 

Face it:  the proponent scientists have an avalanche of evidence in their favor.  You have none; and "you can't prove a negative" isn't an acceptable excuse.  All this evidence is something.  You must provide direct evidence of what that is, or "unlisted primate" is still the only bettable proposition from a scientific viewpoint.  The proponents are ahead of the skeptics by way more than the murder rule on this one.  Science says, look for the ape.

 

Whether scientists understand that or not...Science does.  Scientists constantly misunderstand their trade, understandable in that most of them are technicians adept in a narrow field, not true scientists.  Their relation to the true scientist is the same as the VW mechanic's to the Ferrari design head.

 

(You can prove a negative.  Watch me, world!  2+2 does not equal 5.)

That's not a negative.

[Yuchi1]

Gotta love Sasquatch "experts" that offer up zero proof!

 

Kinda makes them on a par with Sasquatch "hunters" with an empty bag.

[norseman]

^^^^^

Absolutely, except for one crucial aspect. With no attempt to collect a body? They can remain "experts" forever, and write books and sell Bigfoot "expeditions"...........

 

That may be fine for some or most, but I want the mystery to be solved.

[Yuchi1]

True, but for the "hunters" with no body in hand, they can always continue to rant the no-killers are witholding valuable evidence that would aid them in the mission and justify their continued faliures. IMO, solving the "mystery" will spawn far more problems than anyone ever imagined.

[norseman]

^^^^^

It doesn't matter, reality IS reality. Whatever problem arises from humans knowing for a fact that they share the forest with another ape species? Is a much smaller problem than keeping it a myth, and telling people they are crazy or that they or their children could be in danger in certain areas and not being warned properly by authorities.

 

And for the record? I find dang little info that the "no kill" crowd has as useful...........in fact much of it is absolute fantasy. But there are some very credible and notable exceptions.

[Yuchi1]

Are you saying people are in danger (from Sasquatch) when they go into the woods? Do you have any citations?

[sheri]

Yuchi, do you know for a fact noone has ever been killed by one ?

[norseman]

Are you saying people are in danger (from Sasquatch) when they go into the woods? Do you have any citations?

 

While I think the threat is no higher than say a Bear or a Cougar, yes, I'm saying there is a danger there. Both from a predatory angle which is shared with other predators. But also a surrogate child threat, which is not.

 

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/missing_411.html

 

A Bear kidnaps a girl and keeps her warm in a hollow log. A boy is kidnapped and last seen by another family on the shoulder of a Bear being packed off into the woods. Etc, etc.....

 

Have you read this books?

[Guest Crowlogic]

True, but for the "hunters" with no body in hand, they can always continue to rant the no-killers are witholding valuable evidence that would aid them in the mission and justify their continued faliures. IMO, solving the "mystery" will spawn far more problems than anyone ever imagined.

Care to enumerate on the problems it will cause?  I hate to harp on this but the situation always forms a loop....I have regular contact, I communicate with the creature, I know them, etc etc.  But I will do nothing to help science and humanity in general to gain knowledge of them because I must protect them.  Strip the fluff away and read between the lines it means "I've got nothing but it's fun to say I do and I use protection as the dodge of why don't produce."  

Edited July 30, 2014 by Crowlogic

[Yuchi1]

Yuchi, do you know for a fact noone has ever been killed by one ?

 

No ma'am, no more than you would know that one has killed a homo sapien as in how can a mythical being kill a non-mythical being?

While I think the threat is no higher than say a Bear or a Cougar, yes, I'm saying there is a danger there. Both from a predatory angle which is shared with other predators. But also a surrogate child threat, which is not.

 

http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/missing_411.html

 

A Bear kidnaps a girl and keeps her warm in a hollow log. A boy is kidnapped and last seen by another family on the shoulder of a Bear being packed off into the woods. Etc, etc.....

 

Have you read this books?

Anecdotal stories, weak evidence and no proof that any were kidnapped or killed by the mythical entity you seek.

[Yuchi1]

Care to enumerate on the problems it will cause?  I hate to harp on this but the situation always forms a loop....I have regular contact, I communicate with the creature, I know them, etc etc.  But I will do nothing to help science and humanity in general to gain knowledge of them because I must protect them.  Strip the fluff away and read between the lines it means "I've got nothing but it's fun to say I do and I use protection as the dodge of why don't produce."  

 

Assuming they are "discovered" and classified as a new homo ___, species, how will the authorities deal with them? Round them up and place on reservations? How will the ensuing public panic be handled when it is learned these guys have been around for eons?

 

John Green contends they are nothing more than expendable laboratory experiment animals and can be slaughtered with abandon.

 

Added to the mix are organizations such as NAWAC contending "they" are on the verge of extinction, yet they proffer absolutely no evidence whatsoever of actual population numbers, estimated or otherwise. This also creates the problem for their other contention of habitat destruction (main focus appears to be anti-logging) when timberland use changes (over the past ~50 years) have been documented to be beneficial to known species, most of which are alleged to be food sources of the UHS/SAS/WA's.  IMO, such Quixano-esque behaviors only serve to be problematic within themselves, namely creating incidents where public safety is jeopardized.

 

IMO, the sum of all this equates to the conclusion that basically all of organized Bigfootery is a FUBAR of epic proportions with the fantasy brigade on one side of the aisle and the Seal team Six wannabe's on the other with little apparent latitude for common sense as just about any issue/argument I have ever been associated with, the answer(s) usually lie somwehere near the middle.