What's The Deal With Proponents?

[Guest DWA]

Really.  "Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong again" just makes me want to re-examine everything I think, feel and am.  Just wow, with that one.  Shook me. 

 

Except that, well, his number is, bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong again.  The evidence says so.  Doesn't matter how many fakes there are, have been and will be.  They are not part of the evidence.  Proponents discard them, and focus on the important stuff.  That's the evidence.  We can't really help it if there are folks don't know that.

[Guest thermalman]

Truth is DWA, there is no evidence that has proven to be 100% accurate, as you claim. Otherwise, BF would have been a recognized new species and categorized as such.

Edited October 20, 2014 by thermalman

[Xion Comrade]

I'm talking about reported behavior vs actual documented behavior. In the case of the bear, and other known animals, we have the benefit of observing the actual animals behavior.  When dealing with purely imaginary animals, it is interesting to note the differences in reported behavior based on gender of the witness.

 

Can't say I have noticed much of a difference in reports between men and women myself....Most men out running through the woods who have a encounter are hunting and in my experience have  a extremely defensive and uncomfortable attitude towards being in the woods, most women just aren't, and I would say that one little bit of information makes a real big difference in the nature of the encounter.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

.....Doesn't matter how many fakes there are, have been and will be.....

You sound desperate making a statement like that thinking it a logical argument. It isn't. You've just set yourself up with the job of vetting every report you've ever read in order to cull out the true ones from the fakes. Good luck......Let us know what you find.

If that seems overwhelming then I'll choose one for you:

Incident ID #992565 in John Willison Green's Sasquatch database. Please vet...if you'd be so kind....

Edited October 20, 2014 by hiflier

[BobbyO]

Bzzzzzt. Wrong again.

He's not.

0.05% is most certainly not 0%

0.05% means there is something greater than nothing at all.

Therefore you're real belief in this animal isn't actually that you believe it's a myth at all, you believe there is a chance, albeit a slim one, that there is a chance that Sasquatch exists.

So in plain English that many on this forum will love, dmaker thinks there is a genuine chance of Sasquatch existing.

Scary huh ?

By the way, your family name isn't Fisher is it dm ?

[dmaker]

The 0.05% is a made up number that accounts for the fact that I am not omniscient. It is a meaningless number, much like most of the numbers tossed around here.

[salubrious]

^^ IOW, Due to your lack of omniscience, there is a small chance that BF exists, according to you.

 

Conclusion: dmaker thinks there is a small chance that BF exists. There is no other way to interpret this.

 

For a true skeptic (not scoftic) this is in fact a reasonable viewpoint. It allows evidence to exist as well. So- there is a question I asked to which you never responded on a different thread. As DWA states, there are thousands of sightings that describe a single kind of creature (BF). I've seen these creatures with my own eyes, the question is how did all those people get the physical description correct? Doesn't there have to be a description of the real thing somewhere, such that the thousands of sightings reports match the actual? Or did they all actually see the real thing (excluding of course the hoaxers).

 

I ask this because even the hoaxers rely on the sighting record (with the exception of Todd Standing, who didn't know what they looked like and so created the Muppetsquatch).

[dmaker]

I've already answered your question, in one form or another. The physical descriptions that I have read describe a large ape--with some variations here or there. That is not at all difficult to do. And,here is where it gets a bit tricky, if I am correct and bigfoot does not exist then you did not, in fact, see a couple of them lounging in the middle of the road, but instead imagined it ( submitted with due respect and not intended to ridicule). In which case the details can be conjured out of what you imagine a large ape to look like. It is no shocking notion, to me, that most people will imagine a large ape in mostly the same fashion.

 

There is also a large number of reports that have completely incongruent features. How do you explain those? Perhaps the frailty of human recall and perception? Perish the thought. Bigfoot witnesses are infallible. 

 

 

 

 

As far as my estimation at the chance of bigfoot existing? Perhaps I should have used a more ludicrous number like 0.000000000000001%  Is that better?

 

Let me be clear: the chance of bigfoot existing is, in my opinion, essentially zero.  I don't know for a fact that it does not exist, but the chance of me being wrong is essentially zero. Hence why I gave you a number close to zero.  I should have used a more ridiculous number it seems.

Edited October 20, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

"That is not at all difficult to do" could not be a bigger marker of someone who isn't engaging the evidence on any significant level.  One might just as well get a t-shirt made.

 

People with no experience of great apes in the wild are giving detailed descriptions of great-ape morphology and behavior, commonly known only to primatologists.  In many cases these descriptions predate the confirmation of similar features by primatologists for the known great apes.  (Only one example:  the first ape to be confirmed as eating meat?  Sasquatch.)

 

"Large number of reports that have completely incongruent features?"  bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt, wrong.  See, you gotta show you're keeping up rather than fishing for absurd numbers that don't reflect, basically, anything.

[Bonehead74]

The 0.05% is a made up number that accounts for the fact that I am not omniscient. It is a meaningless number, much like most of the numbers tossed around here.

 

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Good. You're back. Soooo, what about that report I mentioned. C'mon. You read reports right? Did you read this one or do I have to present it on a silver platter? How come you don't follow up without being pestered?

[Guest DWA]

WHAT REPORT?  YOU ARE GONNA ASK ME ABOUT ONE REPORT?

 

One.More.Time.People.

 

It is the volume and consistency that raises the eyebrows, not one, two, ten or fifty of them.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

My, my but don't you twist and turn. What's the harm here? It's only one measly little report. If you had read it EVER it should have piqued your interest. But if you'd rather paint in broad strokes here then nothing about has or ever will change. You will continue to generalize and paint in broad strokes. But there may be hope for you yet. Read the report and you and I can then take it from there. If you don't want to read it then where does that leave your credibility? Honestly I don't see the problem.

By the way, if you do for some bizarre reason read the report and for another even more bizarre reason have a reasonable comment I'd be shocked. Being specific is not your strong suit. Defending your position with the same tired mantras is more your style. Give it a rest and open your eyes to some real investigation and stop being so plush. This will- or SHOULD- raise your eyebrows.

Hey you might even have some fun here for a change. This challenge is aimed right AT proponents so it IS on topic. If you need a fresh copy of the John Green Database it is now, and has been, PINNED in the "Applied Science" thread thanks to See-Te-Cah!

Edited October 20, 2014 by hiflier

[David NC]

Dmaker there is a major feature that does not show up in Sasquatch reports(except in the opposite of what should be) that should be there if people were making a mental construct of a monster gorilla man, even though there are a lot of reports that say their face looked like a gorillas.

[Guest DWA]

Hello DWA,

My, my but don't you twist and turn. 

One of few here that doesn't, actually (what it is about bigfoot skeptics:  with everything/turn turn turn/they find a reason/ turn turn turn...)

 

Not changing my steadfast stalwart From Post One principle here, which is:

 

who cares about ANY one report...?

 

This field and don't we see it here all the time gets led down blind alley after blind alley by the silly focus on The Latest Thing (usually a piece of trash, but hey).

 

Dang if I am looking for it, ferpetesake.  I honestly have better things to do.  Put it in front of me, right here, at the very least.  I might humor you then; but I guarantee you the humor will come with:

 

One report.  Don't mean nuthin'.