Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) ^^^^This, particularly the last two sentences. As MikeZimmer says elsewhere, nothing - *nothing* - in pure scientific method requires a body. Biologists might; but really, science doesn't. In astronomy, practically no proof of anything exists by the standards imposed by biology. We have instead *proxies* that prove to the field 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that the phenomenon is real. Nobody's ever brought back a black hole or an exoplanet; photographs - usually not very good ones - or peripheral measures are the only evidence we have of every celestial body but Earth and its moon. (And OK, I will allow the other places we have managed to land spacecraft.) We "know" what we "know" because there is much proxy evidence that has (apparently) survived much testing, so that we generally assume the proxies to work. (In biology, this is true of evolution, which is not "only a theory;" it is a theory because we can't watch it happening or predict with it the way we can with, for example, the law of gravitation. But the proxies are powerful, and the theory continues to neatly explain the biological components of the natural world.) In 'footology, research is being driven to satisfy lazy people who won't look at evidence. That these lazy people who don't understand science in the slightest are driving people like NAWAC - apparently rightly - to believe that the only way to satisfy these laggards is to take a life is, frankly, borderline criminal. Edited December 20, 2014 by DWA
SWWASAS Posted December 20, 2014 BFF Patron Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) DWA we are on the same page with this. No one has even directly observed or photographed a black hole or exoplanet. So in that light, BF research is far ahead of that. We at least have the P/G film, some blurry images, and hundreds of witness accounts. All we have for black holes is indirect evidence in the form of photography of rapidly moving stars, dust clusters, equations predicting them, but yet main stream science is embracing them recently. Exo-planets are discovered by variations in the light output of their parent stars. Einstein did not believe black holes could exist, even though his own equations predicted them, so it is not like science joined the concept in in mass. It did so very slowly and reluctantly. In some ways scientists are like a herd of cattle, slow to get moving but hard to stop when they start heading some direction. You are right in that there seems to be a lot of laziness at play. When I see some of the scientist skeptics on television debating the existence of BF, in most cases I cannot even imagine them in the field. They look like big city yuppies, or fat old men, who rarely leave the university grounds and demand someone bring them the specimen. People like Meldrum, Bindernagal and others before them, who do get in the field, know something is out there worthy of attention. When someone gets the attention of science, the herd will run over the rest of us getting there if they see money in it. They love that grant money. Edited December 20, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) "I haven't seen a Blue Whale either but I have touched the bones of one. I have seen incontrovertible evidence of their existence. There are tissue samples, fossil evidence, dead specimens, live specimens and a commercial history of humans harvesting Blue Whales,..." Yep. But I haven't seen one, and I've been to the beach numerous times and *on two WHALE-WATCHING TRIPS, BUDDY!* So what you've seen pretty much counts for squat. Listen to me. Just wanted to show how Crowlogic's argument sounds to those of us acquainted with the evidence. Who cares whether I have seen one? Doesn't all that experience Crowlogic cites count more in the balance? Yep...which automatically makes it true for sasquatch, because that is the way the world works. (Watch Crow tell everyone that I just argued sasquatch is proven. Gets 'em every time.) His first sentence shows the hyper-empiricism that has always retarded scientific advances, and it's doing it again. Edited December 20, 2014 by DWA
Guest thermalman Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 And while we're on bankrupt arguments: here, AGAIN, is "no proof = no evidence." Just wow. Just.Wow. Sorry, but you've got your bankrupt arguments mixed up.... AGAIN. Reality would tell us "no evidence does equal no proof", whereas credulous claims lack any proof,
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) How much ground did your friend cover and supposing bigfoot exists how many do you actually think should be living in the area your friend was? I would say the entire bigfoot population for all regions would be no more than 2000. As for the amount of territory traveled well 9 months in a forest should get you a heck of lot more area traveled then Patterson and Gimlin did there in 67 wouldn't you agree? My own field research of acid lakes in upper NY State pretty much did the entire Adirondack Preserve which is huge. Edited December 20, 2014 by Crowlogic
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 20, 2014 Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) "I haven't seen a Blue Whale either but I have touched the bones of one. I have seen incontrovertible evidence of their existence. There are tissue samples, fossil evidence, dead specimens, live specimens and a commercial history of humans harvesting Blue Whales,..." Yep. But I haven't seen one, and I've been to the beach numerous times and *on two WHALE-WATCHING TRIPS, BUDDY!* So what you've seen pretty much counts for squat. Listen to me. Just wanted to show how Crowlogic's argument sounds to those of us acquainted with the evidence. Who cares whether I have seen one? Doesn't all that experience Crowlogic cites count more in the balance? Yep...which automatically makes it true for sasquatch, because that is the way the world works. (Watch Crow tell everyone that I just argued sasquatch is proven. Gets 'em every time.) His first sentence shows the hyper-empiricism that has always retarded scientific advances, and it's doing it again. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Come to think of it naming any proven to science animal does not belong in a discussion of bigfoot. Bigfoot is unproven. No matter how many people say they've seen it and no matter how strongly they believe in it not one molecule of proof exists. Lots of hearsay, speculation and circumstantial evidence but no real proof. Bigfoot is a belief system it does not need proof for it's adherents to maintain belief. However don't expect me to prove bigfoot there is nothing to prove. I do expect you to prove bigfoot if there is something there to prove. Perhaps it's a matter of people disbelieving that keeps it unproven? Edited December 20, 2014 by Crowlogic
SWWASAS Posted December 20, 2014 BFF Patron Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) If I could time travel I would drop in on Crows high school science classes and hammer home the difference between evidence and proof. He cannot seen to discern the difference. This is a trap Crow. I have submitted several examples of evidence here on various threads in the form of footprint pictures. Here is your chance to find them and prove they cannot be bigfoot. That is the only chance a skeptic has to prove anything since you cannot prove something does not exist. I do not recall you commenting on them when I posted them. If you are not familiar with them that is your problem not mine. If you are objective you would look at all the evidence presented here and elsewhere and be at least be familiar with it. But skeptics do not seem to acknowledge any evidence is ever presented, because why would they need to look at evidence when they "know" BF is not real. My footprint findings are not proof, they are evidence. Evidence you claim has never been presented here. Oh by the way circumstantial evidence in a court of law can put you away for the rest of your life if the state thinks you killed someone. Hint! Footprint pictures are physical evidence. Let me make it more clear. If you kill someone, wearing your favorite pair of tennis shoes and leave footprints in the mud, you will see pictures of that footprint and your shoes in court as evidence. That will not be proof you killed someone but good evidence you did. In court, proof is in the head of the jury. In science proof is in the head of those doing peer reviews on papers presented with sufficient evidence to be accepted. Edited December 20, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT 2
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 If I could time travel I would drop in on Crows high school science classes and hammer home the difference between evidence and proof. He cannot seen to discern the difference. This is a trap Crow. I have submitted several examples of evidence here on various threads in the form of footprint pictures. Here is your chance to find them and prove they cannot be bigfoot. That is the only chance a skeptic has to prove anything since you cannot prove something does not exist. I do not recall you commenting on them when I posted them. If you are not familiar with them that is your problem not mine. If you are objective you would look at all the evidence presented here and elsewhere and be at least be familiar with it. But skeptics do not seem to acknowledge any evidence is ever presented, because why would they need to look at evidence when they "know" BF is not real. My footprint findings are not proof, they are evidence. Evidence you claim has never been presented here. Oh by the way circumstantial evidence in a court of law can put you away for the rest of your life if the state thinks you killed someone. Hint! Footprint pictures are physical evidence. Let me make it more clear. If you kill someone, wearing your favorite pair of tennis shoes and leave footprints in the mud, you will see pictures of that footprint and your shoes in court as evidence. That will not be proof you killed someone but good evidence you did. In court, proof is in the head of the jury. In science proof is in the head of those doing peer reviews on papers presented with sufficient evidence to be accepted. Evidence is not proof. Where has the evidence of bigfoot proven bigfoot? Where is there evidence that could not have been faked or misidentified. What the readers of my posts have not grasped is that I sided with the proponents for decades using all of the same arguments that proponents use to maintain their position. However eventually the weight of those arguments could not outweigh the total lack of a proven animal. So if folks want to argue with me let's start the argument off with a simple solid foundation. When the bigfoot proponent community delivers a scientifically proven bigfoot then we can discuss the fine points of the circumstantial evidence/belief system. Until then you are backing an invisible horse.
Guest DWA Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 ^^^^Even in saying "evidence is not proof" he shows that he thinks it is. What can one say.
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 ^^^^Even in saying "evidence is not proof" he shows that he thinks it is. What can one say. Negative. Evidence is information no more no less.
Guest DWA Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Well, the information, with which you might want to acquaint yourself, says you're wrong. Evidence can do that. Why do bigfoot skeptics push the agenda so far that it doesn't seem they're even reading anything that disagrees with them? SMH country, that, big time.
Guest thermalman Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) Same could be said for BF proponents pushing their credulity agenda so far that it doesn't seem they're even reading anything that disagrees with them? Edited December 21, 2014 by thermalman
Incorrigible1 Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 Is there such a thing as mainstream science, and then "bigfoot enthusiast" science? For some to conclude and push the point that it's all settled (in favor of BF conclusively existing) seems preposterous. But here we are, in the crazy world of bigfoot. Reading reports seems enough to prove most anything, eh?
Guest Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 I would say the entire bigfoot population for all regions would be no more than 2000. As for the amount of territory traveled well 9 months in a forest should get you a heck of lot more area traveled then Patterson and Gimlin did there in 67 wouldn't you agree? Well I was wondering about the specific area your friend went. A few dozen sasquatch there today? Less than that? Less than in Patterson and Gimlin's time? And Patterson and Gimlin didnt see other bigfoot or evidence of on any other days there. Just that day when she came to the creek and they bumped into her. Bit of plain ol' luck that, Was your friend going deep off trail through dense forest and looking at the ground all the time for tracks? Other people HAVE been to that area, and other areas, and found evidence. For some to conclude and push the point that it's all settled (in favor of BF conclusively existing) seems preposterous. And plenty of skeptics also claim there is zero evidence, which is even more preposterous. But here we are, in the crazy world of bigfoot. It's certainly crazy that people who think there is nothing to the subject then spend every day talking about it. I wouldn't waste my time.
Incorrigible1 Posted December 21, 2014 Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) And plenty of skeptics also claim there is zero evidence, which is even more preposterous. You quoted me, and yet that's not what I said. I did not say "There is zero evidence." ::continues wiping straw off clothing:: Edited December 21, 2014 by chelefoot
Recommended Posts