SWWASAS Posted October 8, 2014 BFF Patron Posted October 8, 2014 I agree with you Coffee. Seemingly some would need to see one for themselves, but I think some have belief systems so strong they might not even accept the experience. What I do not like with a lot of skeptics is that they refuse to accept there is any evidence. That shows a very closed mind. Dozens of times some of them on this forum have said no evidence exists. With that they are wrong. An open minded skeptic like many scientists I have heard, would admit that evidence exists, it just is not good enough to be convincing or prove anything. I used to be to be in that camp myself until I began to find evidence and ultimately become a witness in an encounter. But unlike many of the armchair skeptics here, and members of the scientific community at large, I was curious enough to go into the field and find out for myself. Scientists are self handicapped in that they are used to expecting public or other people's money to fund their research. They might be curious, admit Meldrum might be right about footprints, but are not going to put their careers, reputations, and livelihood in jeopardy by seeking grants to spend a year in the field looking for BF. Certainly skeptics are not going to spend their own money on BF research. I was curious enough, retired, and have the means. I decided to give it a year, spend a lot of time in the field, and if I did not find any evidence in that time frame give it up as unlikely and move onto something else. 5 months in I found my first footprint and had my first and best encounter at 7 months and am now hooked for life. Evidence is there if you look for it. Admittedly I am very lucky that I live in an area where I could do that and have some chance of success. Many places in the country that is less likely in spite of time in the field and good intentions. 1
dmaker Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 No conclusive, objective evidence exists. Calling something evidence of bigfoot does not make it so. Evidence that is amenable to scientific testing, so far, has failed miserably to support the bigfoot claim. For example, DNA testing has always failed. The results, when the sample yields any DNA to test with, have always come back as a common animal. But the sample was submitted as " bigfoot evidence", when clearly it was not.
WSA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 I have commented many times (probably too many) on the meme that I distill into the paraphrase: "All the evidence sucks, except if/when you find a body, and then it is all briliant." Such is the skoftics cul de sac. They can't comfortably plant their flag in both possible outcomes, or balance the question as just one that has not been answered yet to anyone's satisfaction who has not had a sighting of their own. Once, just once, I'd like to see some of this ilk say, "You know, I don't have a satisfactory answer to what this is...but I'll keep it as an open issue for as long as it takes to find out something definitive." In the meanwhile, it would help to not confuse ambiguous evidence with any kind of a final explanation. In this world many things look, act and are similar. Confusing that for a satisfactory explanation is a one-way trip to mind stagnation. In the end, it may be as simple as a comment Bill Munns recently posted on one of the PGF threads. This category of minds just may lack the simple ability to parse good evidence from bad...if it is purported to be of a BF, then it has to be bad evidence. I've seen plenty others here though who have had no trouble doing that evidence triage, and they have very sound reasons. Takes rigor though.
Guest DWA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 ^^^That, with special emphasis on the "This category of minds just may lack the simple ability to parse good evidence from bad" part.
dmaker Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I have a satisfactory answer, you just don't like it. Honestly, this good evidence from bad nonsense is tiring. All testable alleged bigfoot evidence has failed--ALWAYS. No exceptions. Are you telling me that DNA testing is unable to "parse" properly? And when Meldrums current DNA tests on what is being called the gold standard of Sasquatch samples fails? What then? Oh, just ANOTHER failed attempt to confirm bigfoot? WSA, you say you look for something definitive? I say that is false. I don't imagine a point where you would ever be convinced that bigfoot does not exist. How many tests have to fail? How many years have to go by? Poppycock. You want to continue believing in bigfoot because you get a kick out of it. Edited October 8, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) No, actually, you have no way of demonstrating that you have anything satisfactory to tell anyone about his. A certain category of minds just may lack the simple ability to tell the difference between tiring and true. (The inability to parse evidence from proof: TIRING. Cap T.) Edited October 8, 2014 by DWA
WSA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 With the notable exception of that category of evidence...as we've been frequently reminded...which can't be tested. Which is confused by many with a category of evidence that doesn't exist. Which is often confused with what is proposed as an explanation, i.e., it could be anything. The opposite of something that could be anything is not nothing. It is something unknown, awaiting an explanation. It takes some nimbleness to keep this concept clear, and there is often failure in that around here.
dmaker Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) How many ways do you think you can cleverly insult my intelligence? Your command of language is not nearly as sophisticated as you imagine. It is not something unknown, awaiting an explanation--that is your hope, not the reality. The explanation is out there in plain sight. That you refuse to accept it so that you can continue to enjoy your bigfoot fantasy does not reflect on anyone else and their ability to follow your concepts. Your concepts, such as they are, could not be more clear. They are borne of boyhood campfire stories and spooky movies. You will never be satisfied until someone declares that "Yes, Virginia, there is a Bigfoot." In the meantime you will remain impervious to logic, reason and reality. I don't really care that you or DWA, or anyone, believes in bigfoot. It's your condescending manner in which you do it that rankles. I have my position and opinion, you have yours. I'm satisfied to leave it at that, but you and DWA seem the opposite. Particularly DWA, who feels the need to condescend and patronize anyone who disagrees with him and turn every post into an US vs THEM situation. Frankly, I am tired of it and you and him. Let's just agree to disagree and put each other on ignore? I'm good with that. Edited October 8, 2014 by dmaker
WSA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) As I've said before too...nothing telegraphs condescension quite like interjecting yourself into discussions of something you don't believe could possibly be true. You might be overlooking that quality in your continued, ummm...participation. A lot of us here have not. Edited October 8, 2014 by WSA
Guest DWA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) ^^^Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...that. No blacker pot, etc. Edited October 8, 2014 by DWA
dmaker Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) As I've said before too...nothing telegraphs condescension quite like interjecting yourself into discussions of something you don't believe could possibly be true. You might be overlooking that quality in your continued, ummm...participation. A lot of us here have not. I disagree. As long as I post within the rules and am polite and respectful of others and their opinions, then one need not assume, or charge, condescension. I don't need you questioning my reasons for being here and adopting a tack with me because you assume something about me. So, how about it? I ignore you, you ignore me? I am fed up with your disdain and your childish " let's all just wish bigfoot into existence" and anyone who doesn't is a big, close minded, meanie skeptic! I would be quite content for our paths never to cross again. Do you believe that only someone who believes in bigfoot can contribute to this forum? Edited October 8, 2014 by dmaker
WSA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Dmaker....Well yes, my comments might be a problem for you then. I don't really view your opinions as very hard to rebut for anyone with a passing acquaintance with history and science, and I'm afraid I just don't take this matter personally enough to go to that extreme. There is no very big part of my ego invested in the existence of Sasquatch, or not. If you feel the same about my views, not a problem. You have expended a lot of words so far trying to convince others of their delusions. I can't help but note you don't really like to have the same handed back to you. This is a hot kitchen, and if you want to ignore me, by all means that is your right and privilege. I doubt I will return the favor though.
dmaker Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 In your opinion, what delusions do I suffer from exactly?
Guest DWA Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 ^^^Hot kitchen there, bud. You're saying something isn't real, and you know it, and aren't providing anything a serious person can take seriously. I'd just want to think about that. some.
Guest Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Can somebody suggest to me, in their opinion the best piece of evidence so far as to Bigfoots existence for them. I realize that is a vague request but all I can come up with is the Patterson Gimlin film. I've watched Todd Standings video and photos, I'm not convinced. Just trying to get a feel of what other people are seeing out there...thanks
Recommended Posts