Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Starling said:

I come here because I'm interested in the nature of belief. So your take on this is particularly fascinating to me.

 

In what way?   Unwillingness to throw the empirical data under the bus and support your essentially illiterate agenda?    Ironically, that's essentially what Melba Ketchum did, and was properly castigated for, only in reverse.

 

1 hour ago, Starling said:

You claim most, if not all, scientists lack the open-mindedness necessary to see the truth which is so very plain to you. And yet your stance is so utterly rigid and inflexible that the irony inherit in your position is ultimately what's most impressive about it.

 

I don't think it's DWA being rigid, the thing you're not getting is that the **data** is so consistent.   I can't speak for DWA, but the only thing rigid in my position, the only agenda I have, is rigid adherence to real science, including statistics, and the only way I'm changing my position is when the real data ... ALL of it, not a cherry-picked subset ... says such a change is warranted.     

 

MIB

 

[Guest DWA]

1 minute ago, MIB said:

 

In what way?   Unwillingness to throw the empirical data under the bus and support your essentially illiterate agenda?    Ironically, that's essentially what Melba Ketchum did, and was properly castigated for, only in reverse.

How many times, eh?  I've read those psycho-social reports, and it is simple as color by numbers that the specific things they are talking about that skew witness perception are *NOT* happening in sasquatch reports.  Let me put it this way:  I'd bet my house they aren't, and for you to win you have to *prove it to me* and why do I think I am hearing the thin tinny sound of a skepto-whine right as I type this...

 

I don't think it's DWA being rigid, the thing you're not getting is that the **data** is so consistent.  

Nor that, whether one report is data or not:  THOUSANDS of CONSISTENT ones ...are.  (I'm typing for Starling 'til he gets reading glasses  ) Thousands of consistent anecdotes have been considered solid evidence since before we started chipping stone tools.

I can't speak for DWA, but the only thing rigid in my position, the only agenda I have, is rigid adherence to real science, including statistics, and the only way I'm changing my position is when the real data ... ALL of it, not a cherry-picked subset ... says such a change is warranted.     

Speaking for me, brah.  Rigid adherence to real science is what changed my mind on this, every time it has changed.  And it has changed more than once. Although the basic suspicion that they're real has been with me since age 10 1/2...at which time I'd already applied more scientific method to this than most scientists have, which is less arrogance on my part than incompetence on theirs.  I *think,* although when it comes to animals, I am pretty much da chit. In fact, finding yourself opposed to me on an animal-related topic might be a pretty significant indicator that you're wrong, just sayin

 

MIB

 

 

Well *that's* refreshing. You tend to show up at good times, man.

[Guest Starling]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

 

(Worth pounding hard on.)

 

I'd think y'all stoodious would be able to point me to something relevant backing your point of view, eh?  I just showed you - AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT I CAN THINK OF off the top of my head - the very simple reason your psycho-cotic studies don't touch what we are talking about here.  I've pointed you to things you refuse to even read, or think about properly, one or the other.  Got something that might say something relevant about this field that disagrees with me? 

 

I think there might be no limit to what I'd bet that you don't.

and...cue the [crickets]...

 

Lest your crickets drown out the continual and consistent sound of my perfectly reasonable point...May I politely steer you in the direction of Mr Carl Gustav Jung who once said of paranormal subjects:

 

 "To believe that such things are real suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged… This remarkable fact in itself surely merits the psychologist's interest."

[MIB]

^^^^ That might be fine if bigfoot were paranormal, but they are not, they are just flesh and blood biological things ... same as you.  

 

Having to recast them as paranormal rather than biological so you can summarily dismiss them isn't a very rational path .. though it is quite the rationalizing straw man argument setup, gotta give you that much credit.

 

MIB

[Guest Starling]

3 minutes ago, MIB said:

^^^^ That might be fine if bigfoot were paranormal, but they are not, they are just flesh and blood biological things ... same as you.  

 

Having to recast them as paranormal rather than biological so you can summarily dismiss them isn't a very rational path .. though it is quite the rationalizing straw man argument setup, gotta give you that much credit.

 

MIB

 

And yet for a living, breathing, not to say gigantic, fact of nature, they remain as elusive as the fairy. My daughter is of an age and mind to believe such things are real and will frequently go looking for them in the woods. I must confess I may have mischievously encouraged her search with a few choice (not entirely truthful) observations of my own!

 

Is her belief sincere? Yes. Is it a symptom of psycho-social factors. It's hard to deny, unless you have more concrete evidence?

 

So no straw man here. Only evidence of human myth making supported and augmented by pranks and calculated shenanigans all of which we know to exist.

[Incorrigible1]

There's an entire section of this forum dedicated to supernatural bigfoot. It's quite active, too.

[MIB]

41 minutes ago, Starling said:

So no straw man here. Only evidence of human myth making supported and augmented by pranks and calculated shenanigans all of which we know to exist.

 

You can tell yourself that as much as you want but that won't make it true.   Eh .. whatever floats your boat, I guess.   

 

MIB

Edited June 14, 2017 by MIB

[Twist]

MIB, to be fair, as someone that has had visual encounter such as yourself, BF is not paranormal.  To non believers and the general population BF is paranormal.  That is until we put a body on the slab.   

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

And yet for a living, breathing, not to say gigantic, fact of nature, they remain as elusive as the fairy. My daughter is of an age and mind to believe such things are real and will frequently go looking for them in the woods. I must confess I may have mischievously encouraged her search with a few choice (not entirely truthful) observations of my own!

 

Is her belief sincere? Yes. Is it a symptom of psycho-social factors. It's hard to deny, unless you have more concrete evidence?

 

So no straw man here. Only evidence of human myth making supported and augmented by pranks and calculated shenanigans all of which we know to exist.

Starling

If some one could come on this forum  and prove to me the findings of all the evidence that I have posted on this forum including my sightings were hoaxed. I would agree with you totally on what your mentor is saying by the quote that you have posted which states : "  To believe that such things are real suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged " including the paranormal side that I have experienced. But no one and I mean no one has come forward and said that they have hoaxed me. They are as real as we are in flesh and blood and by saying that this is a symptom of psycho-social factor is an insult to all who have seen them.

 

I went in with the belief of never seeing one and that they do not exist.  I am sure that a lot of people who have seen these creatures have seen them with the belief that they do not exist . That their encounters have given them a long lasting mind set that now has changed their belief which they them selves cannot understand. Now I am not one to try to dig deep into the minds of those who have seen them but my own. But I can tell you it has effected me in such a way that I cannot explain and if you are a pysc-doc  well it would most definitely change yours.

 

Now if you encouraged your daughter to go looking for this creature well this is a problem that you created on your own. You placed that thought in her mind  to search for these creatures . The problem I find is when she finds out that they are real, what will you do then  to stop her search. what will you do when they search for her and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You can have all the degrees in the world  and yet they will have no meaning to them. Start reading about our Native American Indians and Bigfoots and their encounters. I stop taking my daughter hunting with me due to them.  Since I would be unable to protect her from them. When you see a full grown Pitbull  curled up in a ball for a week in a corner who is not afraid of anything . You tend to understand what these creatures are all about. So be care full for what you wish for. I went looking for them and found what I was looking for  and now I know they exist.  

[Guest DWA]

4 hours ago, Starling said:

 

And yet for a living, breathing, not to say gigantic, fact of nature, they remain as elusive as the fairy. My daughter is of an age and mind to believe such things are real and will frequently go looking for them in the woods. I must confess I may have mischievously encouraged her search with a few choice (not entirely truthful) observations of my own!

 

Is her belief sincere? Yes. Is it a symptom of psycho-social factors. It's hard to deny, unless you have more concrete evidence?

 

So no straw man here. Only evidence of human myth making supported and augmented by pranks and calculated shenanigans all of which we know to exist.

Yeah, they're **** elusive, and here's how elusive:  only slightly more people see them in a year than see a *wolverine.*  You see how many reports there are?  Oh wait but you have a total explanation for ALL of them, which is easy when you don't even know what they say.  You don't even know what "your" studies say...and I do.

 

And you call thousands of people, including the ones talking to you now, with a wave of your hand that you haven't even checked *to make sure that's your hand*, liars fools and incompetents.

 

You're quite the talkative brick wall, I must say.  But my hand is approaching the flush button because I don't see you backing up that whole cloth belief with *one fact.*

 

We all know CLOWNS TO EXIST.  That mean you're one?  Following your logic, there is only one answer.  YES.

(In terms of understanding what's up here, you may be right.)

Denial is *such* a powerful force over the human mind that it *can even hide this.*

4 hours ago, MIB said:

^^^^ That might be fine if bigfoot were paranormal, but they are not, they are just flesh and blood biological things ... same as you.  

 

Having to recast them as paranormal rather than biological so you can summarily dismiss them isn't a very rational path .. though it is quite the rationalizing straw man argument setup, gotta give you that much credit.

 

MIB

Slice!

 

And while we're - OK, a select few of us - on the cutting edge of science, here's why they call it the cutting edge:  the least material is there...but it's the only sharp part of the knife.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

OK, summing up Starling.

 

1.  He says the more evidence we get, the more right *he* is.

2.  His central thesis is backed by studies he hasn't read, that don't touch this evidence, and sound (*I* *HAVE* read them) like they are scientists' pre-emptive strike against anything that might suggest to them that they're wrong about something.

3.  He's done, IOW, *zero* work on this, and is totally comfortable with that.

 

Hit the flush button now?  Vox populi! Oh, *I* know which way this is going.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

A purely social explanation for reports seems to always be supported by people who either have next to no knowledge on the subject or are in denial (e.g. people with high sensitivity to cognitive dissonance). A non-biological explanation, as flawed as it may seem, would still be closer to the truth than what a lot of these so-called skeptics try to support. In the latter case, you're at least correctly deducting that people are having legitimate experiences.

 

We can't discuss more complicated aspects of this phenomenon in a productive manner if people can't even understand the required fundamentals, hence, we're still discussing arguing ineffectively over existence. It's not a good sign as far this field of research is concerned. Luckily, there's a wild card in progress.

[Guest DWA]

16 hours ago, Starling said:

 

Lest your crickets drown out the continual and consistent sound of my perfectly reasonable point...May I politely steer you in the direction of Mr Carl Gustav Jung who once said of paranormal subjects:

 

 "To believe that such things are real suits the general opinion, whereas disbelief is to be discouraged… This remarkable fact in itself surely merits the psychologist's interest."

Jung never heard of bigfoot.  He'd ask you why you aren't thinking about this.

 

He's not talking about bigfoot there.  If you said what he was talking about, I'd show you he's right.  ABOUT THAT.  Not this. 

 

Did I say Jung never heard of bigfoot? And yeah, you did get slammed on the brain skip to "paranormal."

 

Oh, one more thing.  Disbelief is NEVER to be discouraged.  One keeps an open mind.  Disbelief - like belief - is accepting without evidence.  We know we never do that.

 

Do we.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

And of course make that "encouraged."  I'm not encouraging Jung there.

[Incorrigible1]

Welcome to the jungle, Starling. Foghorn Leghorn is a trip.