dmaker Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 The evidence that they are present, as you say, suggests their presence to some while to others, more skeptical of the phenomenon, it suggests something else or is too ambiguous to determine anything. That is the problem, as I see it, with alleged bigfoot evidence--it is simply too ambiguous. This ambiguity opens the doors for subjective interpretation. Some will interpret it as bigfoot evidence while others will not.
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 I don't know DWA, he seems like a nice enough guy when on the subject of Bigfoot. It's understandable that he'll only consider hard evidence but he doesn't accuse folks of being nuts for simply trying to find evidence of Bigfoot. I like him. I don't know the subject of your disagreements with Ben but if it was based on evidence I can save you the trouble, because it will take a type specimen on file to convince him they're out there. Chris B. But I guess this is my point. When scientists whose application of their science to the subject is palpable recognize the evidence there is on file as compelling virtually unto proof, there's not much I can say for the opinion of anyone who says, nope, need a body. One doesn't get a body without going out to get one; and waiting for amateurs to do it on their own free time in the face of what we do have is, to me, not speaking well for one's intellectual curiosity. Ben's heckled witnesses. That's a small-picture example of what he actually big-picture thinks.
SWWASAS Posted October 9, 2014 BFF Patron Posted October 9, 2014 Skeptics; how much time do you spend in the field? Who vetted you to evaluate evidence? You don't even know what evidence I and others have, but since you reject all evidence anyway, you probably don't care. How do you know that some scientist is not about to publish and silence you? I eagerly await that day.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I agree that as a lot investigators are not critical enough in interpreting supposed evidence, myself included. That does not however preclude all of our findings as misinterpretation, it is the nature of investigation to wonder down some dead ends in the process of discovery. Or to allow ones zeal to cloud the intellect, as I think has been the case of the study of human evolution from the outset. It seems that every new discovery is the "missing link" so to speak, when in reality every new discovery reveals the depth of complexity and variety that exists or existed. It is the job of the investigator to step back and objectify the information, to think of all the possibilities, and to hesitate to arrive at an unlikely conclusion. More times than not the explanation is the simple one, which is why when I see foot prints left in a remote area hidden from human sight I conclude that the simplest explanation is that something "actual", by that meaning bearing that anatomy, left them....Occam's razor if you will... more or less why individuals like Meldrum, Bindernagel, and Krantz pursued the subject at all. Edited October 9, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot
WSA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) I don't "believe" in jack, to tell you the truth. Everything I know is subject to revision, constantly. The greatest part of things I am more certain of, were told or taught to me by others. I can state with some confidence all of those here matured to adulthood by the same path. As a species, it is what we do. What informs me here, mostly? Simply this.... One person telling you they don't expect you to believe them is not something that even blips the radar. A couple more? Meh. HUNDREDS? Of otherwise sane and reasonable sounding individuals with families, jobs and other indices of responsibility in their daily lives? Saying pretty much the same thing, with congruent biological details across geography, social class and time? Umm...sit up and pay attention you better. Braggarts and con artists abound, for sure. Those are easy to spot a mile off, and even if you don't see it on the first pass, you will. The lack of what some consider "hard" physical evidence doesn't explain the other evidence we have. Explaining that evidence as ambiguous, doesn't make it not nothing. It is still something. Perhaps the greatest social construct of all time? Perhaps. But probably THAT thesis is harder to prove and explain than the lack of a corpus of an unclassified animal. Nobody really seems interested in doing the grunty analysis on that theory either. Mostly it is comprised of sticking to the old saw that congruency is evidence of collusion (intentional or otherwise). Well congruency is evidence of a number of things, one of which is the truth. Which leads me to something I see repeated here often... I mean, what we "should" know by now. No other single statement broadcasts a lack of understanding of human history and scienc than that. The universe is not on the schedule of our puny lives. As eloquent as Kit's narrative above is, about his transition from believer to skeptic, what I really hear him to say is he ran out of patience waiting. Maybe too, he invested too much, too early, and had unreasonable expectations, I dunno, but If you peg the deadline for discovery/not to your own puny lifespan (or a couple of puny lifespans) you are probably going to have your patience tested, and it probably won't hold up. Most who send out this vibe, I believe, are making the same common errors of overestimating what information that is truly available to them and the total amount of scientific rigor already applied to the problem, while also underestimating the task at hand and placing their expectation of "should" on top of all of it. We are just getting started on this problem folks. If you don't understand that, I think you need to take a couple steps back and recalibrate. Edited October 9, 2014 by WSA
Bonehead74 Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) Skeptics; how much time do you spend in the field? Who vetted you to evaluate evidence?I'd be careful with this line of reasoning. There are plenty of bigfoot proponents/believers who could have the same charges levied at them.You don't even know what evidence I and others have, but since you reject all evidence anyway, you probably don't care.Without disseminating the evidence you have, it's not intellectually honest to accuse people of rejecting it. Give folks the chance to evaluate your evidence and you might be surprised to gain some support. Let the evidence rise or fall on its own merits. Edited October 9, 2014 by Bonehead74 1
dmaker Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 (edited) dmaker, What about those of us who believe, and actually had a sighting of something that should not even exist? I can't explain it, all I can do is swear on a Bible that I truly saw a monster that SHOULD not exist. What then? What should I do? I know what I saw, and the fear and fright I feel is horrible. I sincerely wish that I felt the way you do without the horrible knowledge of truth of existence that I live with daily. Susi, if you are that afraid of bigfoot, just carry a camera with you. Everyone knows that bigfoots avoid cameras at all costs. Problem solved I don't "believe" in jack, to tell you the truth. Everything I know is subject to revision, constantly. The greatest part of things I am more certain of, were told or taught to me by others. I can state with some confidence all of those here matured to adulthood by the same path. As a species, it is what we do. What informs me here, mostly? Simply this.... One person telling you they don't expect you to believe them is not something that even blips the radar. A couple more? Meh. HUNDREDS? Of otherwise sane and reasonable sounding individuals with families, jobs and other indices of responsibility in their daily lives? Saying pretty much the same thing, with congruent biological details across geography, social class and time? Umm...sit up and pay attention you better. Braggarts and con artists abound, for sure. Those are easy to spot a mile off, and even if you don't see it on the first pass, you will. WSA, here is a link to a fairy encounter forum. This thread, the encounter thread, has 3,840 posts in it. By your logic, then, do you believe we should seriously consider that a fairy is an undiscovered cryptid? http://www.realfairies.net/forum/faery-encounters Edited October 9, 2014 by dmaker
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 The problem isn't skeptics, it's the lack of evidence. The problem with a belief system based solely on sighting reports is apparent when you ask yourself what you don't believe. If you truly feel that Sassy exists because of unverified sighting reports then you also believe in Chupacabra, UFOs, Elves, Fairies, Dogmen, Jersey Devils etc, etc. You can't argue for the existence of Sassy solely on the strength of a sighting database yet argue against the existence of Ghosts, Wendigos, Skinwalkers, Lizardmen, Alien abductions or the like which also have their own databases. If you don't require hard evidence you believe in stories. If your belief in Sassy is rooted in the strength of an unverified database you and your arguments for existence are not relevant. You will never advance the field, you will never prove anything, you will always be disappointed in the outcome of discussions. Science and skeptics have the high ground - they admit that Sassy is possible yet unproven. Understand that although a few scientists believe in Sassy the vast majority do not and never will without verifiable samples. There has been a lot of testing recently and none of the samples returned any positive results. That doesn't mean it's impossible for Sassy to exist but it does mean that whatever sighting report the sample was collected from is suspect. It should raise even more doubts about the database itself - there is no other logical conclusion. It's frustrating to believers and skeptics alike to have hoaxers and con artists operating in this field. It's even more frustrating to have an interest in the subject and be open to the possibility of an unknown creature but have to wade through thousands of posts which argue for the existence of a creature solely on the basis of anecdotal stories alone. We all know stories don't prove existence, we all know stories will never prove existence, and we all know that anyone who continues to argue for existence based solely on stories isn't even relevant to the discussion. The problems in this field aren't caused by skeptics, they are caused by believers who don't, can't, won't get with the program. Stories won't do it, it will take evidence. 4
WSA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Dmaker, I don't have any interest in fairy encounters so I don't have any basis for judgment, or any burning desire to get to the bottom of the issue (or UFO's, or ghosts, or unicorns...or any number of other irrelevant topics). You seem to though, given this is a frequent point you want to make. If I were you, I'd seek out a fairy forum and get busy. Ohio Bill...I've said many times: The inability to discern an open question from a "belief" probably causes more misunderstanding around here than just about anything else you could name, unless it is the whole evidence-not-proof merry go-round.
SWWASAS Posted October 9, 2014 BFF Patron Posted October 9, 2014 Bonehead, when some skeptic says: "no evidence exists" they have already rejected evidence. It that intellectually honest or do different rules apply to skeptics? I am a scientist and know what is required to publish. So until I have enough good evidence (that is very hard to get) to support a paper or a book, I am withholding some of what I do have. I think there are others like me. As other researchers have found, there is little benefit disclosing much on this forum when there are a number of lay individuals who seem driven to ignore evidence and destroy the forum. When I am ready for a peer review I will publish and get that from someone qualified to do it. How is that for intellectual honesty?
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Ohio Bill...I've said many times: The inability to discern an open question from a "belief" probably causes more misunderstanding around here than just about anything else you could name, unless it is the whole evidence-not-proof merry go-round. I think most of the misunderstandings around here are caused by personal opinions or beliefs being substituted for evidence.
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Bigfoot skeptics all do that. So do some of the proponents. Others of us prefer to go on evidence.
ohiobill Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 When you get some feel free to share, I'd like a look.
Guest DWA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 ^^^And this is the merry-go-round WSA referred to. [sigh]
WSA Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 Ohio Bill, well yeah, sure, that too. All who are serious about this should understand belief, or disbelief, shouldn't be part of the conversation. There is plenty of that going around on both sides though. You can be typed as believing in, or believing against. I don't give a rat's furry either way. All I'm ever interested to know from anyone here is your point by point, head-on, argue yes/no, odds calculated, down in the mud, biologically based, field-tested hypothesis and let me draw my own conclusions. A "that could be anything so I don't have to address it" approach is not only an exceedingly dull approach to life in general, it gets none of us anywhere who are interested in answers.
Recommended Posts