WSA Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Here's one way it goes seriously wrong:"Dismissing a perpetrator does not dismiss perpetrating by others" becomes, "All evidence is the work of perpetrators." That is where you have taken it. Oh boy is that a bizarre-o deduction. Shuts down inquiry PDQ. Remember this too: In order for BF to be a myth/hoax/mistake, you have to prove/find/believe that EVERY SINGLE report/track/film or video is not BF. (And yeah, sorry, each position comes with a burden of proof in this debate) Not "some." Not "most", not "all but a few", but EVERY SINGLE one. If you do that, Sasquatch does not exist (so far). OTOH, all the proponent has to do is prove ONE piece of evidence as compelling or up for reasonable debate. On my scorecard, the skeptics have not even scratched the surface of the evidence to date, and proponents have, many, many times and counting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) ^^^This. All this approach requires is a modicum of curiosity and attention. OTOH, to come on here for...hold it here...1,437 posts!!!...and maintain *that* point of view is, well, one might as well say one's read the Bible, and General Motors is nowhere *near* as bad as it says in there. Edited April 20, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 20, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Very good point WSA. Proving something does not likely exist, requires each and every case to be thoroughly evaluated and disproven beyond question. That is nearly impossible and would require hundreds of unbiased investigators working full time to handle each reported modern case and evidence collected. But what do you do about a 100 year ago sighting? You cannot examine evidence, or interview dead witnesses. If you cannot resolve one case, no matter how old, you cannot claim to prove anything does not exist. But proving existence only requires sufficient proof that just one exists. A far easier thing to do. For that reason, I really cannot understand what a skeptic's agenda really is. They cannot prove anything. Edited April 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Imagine what a skeptic would say to a proponent who told him bigfoot's impossible to prove. If one cannot prove one's thesis...one does not have one worth talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 But instead we see this cherry-picking effort on the part of skeptics, as if to say, "See, this guy makes crap up, so the whole BF thesis collapses as a result." And I know it is not reasonable to ask someone to disprove EVERY bit of evidence, but there are those examples of things that the skeptic just won't touch, or just only touch with a blanket dismissal. That is the standard rejoinder to the BF sighting database, we know. I've read just about every word posted here about the skeptics' position on the PGF, which tell me skeptics are not at all interested in discussing it on any kind of intellectual level aside from (usually)other than in the thought-stopping context of the "I don't care what you say, it looks like a guy in a suit to me." dodge. The reason they don't, I'm convinced, is because it makes them truly uncomfortable and foolish looking to admit there is no glib answer. They believe (I think) that disproving one piece, or even a number of pieces of evidence disproves the lot. In what field of human endeavor is that kind of reasoning allowed to be passed off as something proven, or even approaching something we'd call scientific rigor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) ... it makes [bigfoot skeptics] truly uncomfortable and foolish looking to admit there is no glib answer. They believe (I think) that disproving one piece, or even a number of pieces of evidence disproves the lot. In what field of human endeavor is that kind of reasoning allowed to be passed off as something proven, or even approaching something we'd call scientific rigor? Anyone who played bigfoot-skeptic in any other area of the hard sciences would be laughed at until he got really annoying, and then banned from the room until he got a decent secondary education. This is *hard science,* people. That one doesn't know that doesn't change it. That one can't get one's head around it doesn't qualify one to discuss it. Hard scientists have written books full of the hard science of this topic. They have received, essentially, zero rejoinder that any respectable player in any other science would fail to laugh at, hard. If it happened, that is, in his/her specific field. So why do so few respectable players in the hard sciences appear to have the foggiest understanding of this? Get scientists out of the day to day comfort of the tiny corner of science in which they've taken up residence...and most of them show they're more specialized techies than real scientists. But hey, the real fun of being in the know in this field is being so far out ahead of that bunch...and knowing you're right. I am really finding it hard to understand what keeps bigfoot skeptics coming back here and back here and back here...doing one of the least-fun leisure activities I am aware of, never mind one of the most ill-informed. Edited April 20, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Hope springs eternal DWA, because knowing you are right and being right are two different things. I think it would be marvelous if bigfoot is real, but there isn't much out there now that is rigorous enough to be considered good evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 If there's one thing Bigfoot research has taught me, it's that "good evidence" is a very subjective thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 20, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 20, 2015 Any evidence that is not proven to be faked, made up, doctored, etc is good evidence. It may not prove a darn thing but it still is good evidence. Don't get me wrong, scientists have been known to do fudge data to support their theories and we should always be on watch for that in BF research. With BF research, footprints are probably the most suspect and they should be. Most of us do not have the knowledge base to tell human from BF in good media if they are human in size or width, and get into gravel and pine needle ground cover, I don't think anyone can tell the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Actually, some of the best evidence that exists is the footprints, many of which have been analyzed and found to be live evidence by people whose qualifications could not be more direct and relevant. If Johnny Come Hoaxies are fooling these people...they, um, are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If there's one thing Bigfoot research has taught me, it's that "good evidence" is a very subjective thing... Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) If you want to see hoaxes just keep searching the net. The real researchers in this field are not concerned about convincing the skeptics of anything, and as I must admit I am a bit of a arm chair enthusiast. Or should I say that I am more of a computer chair enthusiast, meaning I have spent far more time hear blogging than hours directly researching the subject, that is the truth. I am leaning on the work of a lot of other dedicated people, people who are not entertained by forums or facebook. What deludes me is that I actually feel I have learned from my online activity and studying data. Yes I have had an encounter with vocalizations, and subsequent activities on my property, but how little time has actually been spent tracking the creatures down. Sometimes I think I want it to remain a mystery, and that is why I have not pursued the task further, then I realize that I have nearly devoted most of my free time to pondering the subject, so what is the difference. I like many of you am neurotic in the matter, and of course I did not find bigfoot, they found me, or crossed my path for an instance. Edited April 21, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 If not bigfoot, then something else. Some people seem to either be drawn to the absurd or it's drawn to them. It's hard to tell which sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) What is absurd is that it exists in the first place, and that is why it is so addicting to those who know. I spent my whole life enjoying the outdoors, knowing the creatures that live there, having multiple encounters with Moose, Bear, Coyote, having seen Bobcat and Lynx. Nothing ever could prepare me for what I heard several years ago, and I am no novice to what animal sounds are being made around me. This was a primate, and it had a very human emotion to it. If I could explain it away otherwise then I could be free from this burden to prove to myself what I heard, it is no small mental weight. Edited April 21, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) It's maddening when you see something that by all rights shouldn't exist. If you tell it, everyone looks at you like you are crazy and then you start to feel like maybe there IS something wrong with your perception of things. Edited April 21, 2015 by Divergent1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts