Guest DWA Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) And still we see the 'skeptical' inability to understand the terms 'evidence' and 'testing' as they are used in science. PGF is evidence. The evidence has been tested; the tests come back 'authentic.' The footprints are evidence, tested. Authentic. The eyewitness testimony passes the scientific tests of frequency and coherence. And how many many many times have we tried to drum this in. People who can't accept it just get left behind in the discussion is all. It is interesting to see how people continue to reject ideas they just can't get their arms around, despite all the enlightened efforts made here. (Including all the brick-simple, utterly reasonable explanations why there are no public domain photos of bigfoot. Which have gotten repeated here, over and over.) It's just like the scientists in the 1940s who refused to believe that bats used echolocation to navigate. That is classified information! they cried. How could bats have it? Well, we could tell you. But it's gonna require you to listen, and to think a bit. Edited October 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 It's fun to watch game cams not capture bigfoot. I'm not using game cams as an excuse for the non existence of bigfoot. I'm just reminding you that there is no such recorded bipedal primate. Netither on game cam or Kodak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Like I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Doesn't "authentic" mean that the the majority of reviewers accept the evidence as irrefutable, or at least look at the probabilties? If that isn't happening then the evidence hasn't been deemed as authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 (edited) Yes, it means that, and yes that has happened. When people who have not reviewed it do not accept it as authentic, their opinion counts for nothing. Maybe not as far as the uninformed bulk of the society - including the uninformed bulk of the scientific mainstream - is concerned. But as far as science is concerned. Which is all that counts. Edited October 3, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Science has not authenticated evidence for bigfoot. People like Sykes, Meldrum, and a few others have tried but they haven't been successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painthorse Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 Painthorse: The subject came up for about the 100th time on a thread I started about five years ago.on a hunting forum here. A few days ago I did some reasonable calculations about the number of game cams that would be needed to "cover" the Ouachita NF in AR & OK. It came out to about 13 million. Painthorse: The subject came up for about the 100th time on a thread I started about five years ago.on a hunting forum here. A few days ago I did some reasonable calculations about the number of game cams that would be needed to "cover" the Ouachita NF in AR & OK. It came out to about 13 million. Branco, I agree with that number, if not more. Cams are only a tool and not dependable. Awhile back I posted in a different thread about cam failure. I had two cams set within 20 foot of each other on a trail. One cam caught a bear walking "directly towards" the other cam. That "other cam" triggered but not until after the bear had passed. That second cam had more than ample time to trigger but lagged just seconds too late to capture the bear. Also Branco, just think, we are only talking abouit the Ouachitas with that number you figured above. Now take into account how many cams it would take to cover all the forests in the USA, not just the national forests but also private land. The argument of "With all the cams out there, there should be pic captures" is not a valid argument based on " the reality that there are not enough cams out there". Hmmm that gives me an idea for another thread, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 But... Many rare and elusive animals are photographed by trail cameras, the above wolverine example being one such case. Were the cameras placed specifically to photograph suspected wolverines or was it an incidental capture by a trail cam placed to get pics of other animals? If the latter, the example especially illustrates my point. Also, I'm certain the wolverine photos were not obtained by placing trail cams wall-to-wall across the wilds of Utah, which is what some here seem to be suggesting as necessary to get a picture of an elusive wild animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Yes, it means that, and yes that has happened. When people who have not reviewed it do not accept it as authentic, their opinion counts for nothing. Maybe not as far as the uninformed bulk of the society - including the uninformed bulk of the scientific mainstream - is concerned. But as far as science is concerned. Which is all that counts. Soooooo, the only science that counts is the science from the uniformed bulk of the scientific mainstream? Nuts! Edited October 4, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Science has not authenticated evidence for bigfoot. People like Sykes, Meldrum, and a few others have tried but they haven't been successful. Quote and signature worthy. Look, I can continue to hope, but can't help having worthy doubts. Edited October 4, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) Divergent1: Actually, no. As I've explained, science has authenticated sasquatch evidence. Were this any other kind of animal it would have been confirmed a half-century ago. Again. Science is a process. Doesn't matter if one calls oneself a scientist or not. If one has not reviewed the evidence, and provided a basis for one's opinion, one's opinion doesn't count. What has prevented sasquatch confirmation, the evidence makes clear, is laziness and denial. And, you know, a strong desire not to be branded out of one's livelihood. (Pretty strong incentive, that.) That is not a rant; that is an objective assessment backed by evidence. Every scientist that has evaluated the evidence has confirmed it as genuine. I am still awaiting the first exception. I am not going to see it. The 'arguments' against sasquatch aren't. They are clearly emotional, and deny everything about evidence and what scientists are supposed to do with it. The arguments for? They're arguments. Cogent, compelling, and based on evidence and nothing else. They're science at work. Edited October 4, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) I see what you are saying, the evidence proferred is definitely evidence of something. However, where I differ in opinion is that it does not represent evidence to authenticate the existence of bigfoot. Edited October 4, 2014 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 No. Clearly not to anyone who has not reviewed it. The evidence however tells me that I would not want to bet anything against sasquatch that I was not prepared to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) DWA, if you approach the evidence with the forgone conclusion that it indicates bigfoot then you haven't truly followed the scientific process when other hypotheses for the evidence in question are just as viable and more probable. It doesn't allow for the synthesis of current scientific theories for what fauna has been proven to exist in the North American Continent or what evidence, such as the impact on the local environment, that such a large creature would leave if it were living. It doesn't mean the most probable theory is correct, it only means that it is most likely. So far, the evidence has not authenticated the existence of bigfoot based on this premise. Edited October 4, 2014 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 (edited) No, the other hypotheses have no evidence backing them up. That's the problem. "Proven" has nothing to do with it; that's what scientists sit on when they don't want to address something. The anecdotal evidence meets the scientific tests of frequency and coherence. Forensic evidence (footprints) has been verified as genuine. (That experts in that specific field - who don't have a dog in the zoological hunt - are uniform in this assertion is telling.) There is a film neatly connecting both. Nothing in scientific history has ever had this going for it that wasn't proven. This is the exception because the mainstream refuses to review the evidence. What I find about people using your first sentence is that they're the ones with the foregone conclusion. I got to mine by carefully evaluating all the possibilities...and finding out that only one was backed by a uniform consistent body of evidence. The skeptical take - exemplified in the very topic of this thread - is "there can't be...!" The history of science uniformly affirms that one doesn't say that. Edited October 4, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts