Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[norseman]

10 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

 

The truth is we've had legitimate biological samples (E.g hair, blood, scat) of Sasquatch correctly tested and interpreted since the late 1990's, but they end up getting dismissed by virtually everyone because the results aren't indicative of an undiscovered species. It's part of what makes this phenomenon so mysterious and challenging for enthusiasts.

 

Science says otherwise.

 

Ketchum's results were a debacle. Sykes found nothing related to an undiscovered Primate. Todd Disotell came to the PacNW and collected samples and found nothing. They thought they had something from the blood off of the board at snelgrove lake but turned out to be nothing.

 

All I know that proved positive as a "possible" undiscovered Primate was the morphology of some hairs. Which is again compelling......but not nearly enough to pop champagne corks.

 

I think your trying to explain a mystery with an even greater mystery, with a lot of filling in of the facts along the way. There is simply no reason to think Bigfoot is anything other than a biological creature, if it exists at all.

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

 

This needs to be commented upon more. 

 

If proponents consider P/G legitimate

- and somebody JUST WROTE A WHOLE BOOK ON THIS, go talk to him -

then you don't get away with "I challenge you to get something better than P/G."  I challenge YOU to pick up a pair of reading glasses, you can get a three-pack, cheap.  No film in use in 1967 could get you better fidelity at that distance.  You'll have to go suck an egg whilst you wait for something clearer than P/G.  Know why?  Because when scoffers abound who aren't paying attention, people who don't know any better listen to them and don't exactly have a camera at the ready when unicorns ghosts goblins and the Loch Ness Monster cross the road in front of them.  Or they do...and totally forget that, and numerous reports attest to that, and oh, you would too.

 

Not only that, but bigfoot skepticism (hereinafter BS) wants the proponents to do its work for it.  I once read four 'critiques' of Meldrum's book.  The closest any of them came to actually talking about the book, and not their a priori BS, was when they asked where the thorough analysis was of their BS man-in-suit theory!  Look, if you have a bunch of BS that you are putting forth as a theory, YOU GET THE SAMMICH YOURSELF, BUDDY, and show us that a crock of cockamamie BS like that is worthy of time of day (something Jeff already knew - shoot, *I knew in 1967 when I was 11 years old* - wasn't). I recently got asked why I hadn't delved into the psycho-social phenomenon as the easy explanation for all of this.  My answer, en bref:

1.  I've read the studies; they don't touch the sasquatch evidence;

2. ^^^That, in case you missed it;

3.  Nothing is easy at the frontiers of science, and if this is giving you a nosebleed, it might not be yer cuppa;

4. The evidence you psycho-socials can't even bother yourself to look at, or think about, nothing like which has ever existed that wasn't pretty much what the evidence said.

 

BS is piling itself up on my Ignore list.  Reason?  They insist on not talking about the evidence.  Don't have time for that BS anymore.

But we're asking you to talk about the evidence.  This your chance to dazze us all with the unknown primate results that have been documented. Or maybe by evidence you mean stuff you make up.

[ohiobill]

I have to believe those under revisionist delusions (hereinafter to be referred to as TURDS solely to save forum space) that they can determine the truth of a previously reported sighting in the absence of any physical evidence are simply trolling. TURDS like DWA, WSA etc know there is no way they can actually determine anything from the information contained in the reports other than that a report was made. TURDS often try to inflate the value of the reports but it simply doesn't work, the math just doesn't add up. 10,000 reports, each with zero value as evidence of existence adds up to exactly zero (10000 x 0=0). 

 

Another way to look at it would be comparing the number of posts made on the forum to their level of truth or correctness. DWA would surely rank as the most prolific of all TURDS due to the sheer number of posts he's made on the subject. And while he can rightfully be proud of his status as king of all TURDS we are all free to examine his posts, one by one, for their level of truth or correctness. When we notice the many mistakes he's made, logical fallacies, falling for hoaxes on April 1st, etc we should be noting that DWA's status as king of all TURDS doesn't translate into his being correct or truthful.

 

To sum it up as simply as possible - DWA may be king of all TURDS but it doesn't make him any more correct or truthful just like lots of reports don't mean bigfoot should be recognized as they contain no actual evidence of bigfoot. Each post or report has to judged on it's own and examined for actual evidence. As in many other subjects it's quality, not quantity, that matters.

[wiiawiwb]

Ohiobill.....just curious....you do know there is a difference between proof and evidence, correct? The two are not interchangeable.

[Guest DWA]

I've worked that beat with these people.  Good luck.

[ohiobill]

I believe I do but let's see if we're on the same page...

 

WSA files an encounter report stating that while he was out in the local woods trying to commune with bigfoot he was brutally raped by a large male bigfoot.

 

Is it evidence for the existence of bigfoot?

 

I don't consider it evidence, it's a starting point. WSA would be examined for trace evidence, questioned by law enforcement and law enforcement would go to the scene of the alleged attack to look for evidence.

 

24 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Ohiobill.....just curious....you do know there is a difference between proof and evidence, correct? The two are not interchangeable.

I believe I do but let's see if we're on the same page...

 

WSA files an encounter report stating that while he was out in the local woods trying to commune with bigfoot he was brutally raped by a large male bigfoot.

 

Is it evidence for the existence of bigfoot?

 

I don't consider it evidence, it's a starting point. WSA would be examined for trace evidence, questioned by law enforcement and law enforcement would go to the scene of the alleged attack to look for evidence.

[JustCurious]

6 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

This seems to have become the latest ploy: "I won't provide evidence for you."

 

It's not just you, JC, but you've provided an example. Actually, as Starling posted, just try to provide a decent example image of bigfoot. Other than artist renditions, Patty is the go-to example, simply because of the dearth of any others. So rather than concede the point, a common response is to puff up one's chest and belittle anyone pointing out the scant amount of actual evidence. Sure, there are the occasional footprint or undetermined hairs, but physical evidence? But hey, don't dare ask anyone for that ::puff puff:: because you're too much of a city boy and you don't deserve that for which you ask (and which I'm unable to provide).

 

Footprints and undetermined hairs are physical evidence, but not proof.  No picture, no matter how clear is proof.  Certainly none of that is enough to satisfy a naysayer.  I'm with Norseman on the stance that only a body is going to put it to rest.  When I'm out in the woods on my time and my dime, I'm not there with the thought "Gee, I hasta get a good picture for Starling (or anyone else)."  I'll be happy just to see one for myself.  I honestly don't know of any other walk of life where it's acceptable to ask someone else to go out and get you what you want.

 

The point of this thread is to ask why the CCP hasn't captured any pictures of Sasquatch.  I've only pointed out some reasons why I think there haven't been any captures.  Obviously the premise behind the OP is that there aren't any Sasquatch, but my point is simply that there are other possibilities.

[Guest DWA]

1 hour ago, JustCurious said:

  I honestly don't know of any other walk of life where it's acceptable to ask someone else to go out and get you what you want.

 

Just that.  Once I have found out that all you will do with anything I provide is not think about it or comment intelligently upon it, but just say "this isn't proof," Ignore list.  Boom.  That simple.

 

One thing the scoffers don't seem to grasp is that in any discussion like this, everyone is on trial and has to prove their case.  The mainstream are very officially NOT PLAYING here; they don't count and may be ignored.  Proponents must provide evidence; this they have done. They don't have yer bigfoot yet for a very obvious reason:  most 'expeditions' last three days at most, and you might not see a deer, looking for one, in that time.

 

Deniers have provided nothing, and, surprise, are very officially NOT PLAYING here; they don't count and may be ignored.

 

(If you say "not proven," you don't count and may be ignored. Try telling us at least one thing we don't know.  Actually it IS proven to those who count, but you know that.)

 

It does no good to come up with some half-baked thesis that happens sometimes.  We all know there are fakes lies and hallucinations everywhere, especially around April 15.  So what who cares.  If you cannot provide evidence that EVERYTHING we talk about here comes up false positive, you have, very officially, NOTHING to offer.  Go fix that.  If you can prove to me that EVERY report, EVERY footprint find, EVERYTHING is being said and done about a mythical construct, you have done something.  Otherwise, NOTHING.

 

Why?

 

Because if ONE of them is authentic...YOU ARE WRONG.

 

This is normally easy for grade-schoolers to get.

[ohiobill]

 wiiawiwb? Did you actually want to discuss evidence? If so, WSA being raped by bigfoot is fair game, there are many stories of bigfoot rapes and all are part of the encounter record by default. I'm not sure if you are in TURDS camp like DWA, WSA and OntarioSquatch or not. Just know that TURDS pointing to the totality of the sightings have to accept the good with the bad if they ever plan to defend any of their many interrelated theories. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

As usual, we seem to have made no progress in advancing our understanding through our discussions on the forum,  and are simply repeating ourselves 

[Guest Starling]

19 hours ago, DWA said:

^^^This is kind of where I am now.  Bigfoot skepticism uses that phrase 'special pleading' a lot, but it is the most mammoth special-pleading case I have ever seen in my life.  Look, here is a major exception to the duty of science.  Don't examine the evidence.  DON'T.  Go psycho-social; mix well with own comfort zone; crack a beer and done.

 

Think I will now.  Cheers, JC!

 

You're quite right. That is precisely my position. In lieu of further evidence that doesn't fall into the ambiguous category I'm happy to sit back with a beer and enjoy my theory which completely covers all the bases to my satisfaction.

 

In the meantime the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You can't expect people to do their own research when you continually fail to address the obvious cracks in your own. If you have singularly failed to persuade others of the merits in your argument then perhaps it is your argument that is lacking?

 

Your principle point seems to be that there is an embarrassment of riches evidence-wise that's simply being ignored. If that's the case then this is really an issue of perspective as it always, always comes back to the quality of the evidence. 

 

I'm happy that there are Bigfoot proponents. But I'm also quite happy to live with there being no Bigfoots. You want there to be a Bigfoot? Then I suggest YOU do a much better job persuading me.

 

 If you see a mountain when others recognise a molehill when they see one you're going to be hard pushed to make them see otherwise.

[norseman]

The answers are not here. They are out there in the mountains!

[WSA]

Enjoying Ohio Bill's narrative... very entertaining.   

[MIB]

53 minutes ago, norseman said:

The answers are not here. They are out there in the mountains!

 

And the answers will not BE here 'til someone gets off the couch, out of their mommy's basement, etc, and goes to the mountains, forest, swamp .. even the gol dang dumpster behind Wal-Mart .. and GETS the answers, then shares if they feel like it.   Nobody is entitled to the results of others' labor.  

 

MIB

[hiflier]

In my honest and humble opinion it isn't, and never was, question of entitlement and I don't understand why folks use that word as if it was some kind of barrier. But then........that's just me........again.

Edited June 12, 2017 by hiflier