Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[dmaker]

3 hours ago, DWA said:

One keeps an open mind

How open is your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong about this?

 

 

12 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Luckily, there's a wild card in progress.

Would that wildcard be the aliens that, in your theory, created the bigfeetses?

[Guest DWA]

12 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

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).

That, pretty much.  That CD sensitivity is where the "why isn't one kidnapping me on a weekly basis?" comes in; if they haven't seen one; their friends and relatives haven't, and they have encountered no one who (tells them he) has, then *how could it possibly exist?*  Silly; none of those people have probably seen a black hole either.

 

The only thing that matters here is WHETHER THE ANIMAL EXISTS.  [all caps for the reading-impaired!] Your opinion doesn't.  Mine doesn't.  And the evidence says:  you might want to pay more attention to the world around you if you don't agree with it.

 

A clear marker that you are dealing with one of those people who have next-to-no knowledge:  they keep coming after YOU when Green and Krantz are the people they have to talk to.  (And in my case, here is why:  you might change the minds of Green and Krantz, although I very doubt that, but YOU WON'T CHANGE MINE because I DID THE WORK THEY  DID AND CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. You got a FAR better chance with them than me so STOP BUGGING ME.

(please read the all-caps and STOP BUGGING ME.  Those of you not on Ignore.)

 

[FarArcher]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

How open is your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong about this?

 

 

Would that wildcard be the aliens that, in your theory, created the bigfeetses?

 

I don't know anything about aliens, but DARPA has been, and is involved in genetic engineering - everything from genetic manipulations that would eliminate a soldier from feeling pain, to eliminate empathy, to have the ability to regenerate limbs shattered in combat, put six million in a project called BioDesign, that wants to bolster cellular resistance to death, DNA manipulation that will act as an identifier of a specific individual, like a serial number, another $30 million for DNA sequencing, splicing, and accelerating all other DNA experimentation capabilities.

 

When one considers some of the experiments with creating truly horrific organisms - what researchers are doing will make you sick.

 

There are many things we don't know.  Probably lots of things we don't want to know.  Others we'd be better off not knowing.  But at the rate they're going - in another couple decades - the possibility of someone being 100% human - will be mighty slim to none.

 

Regardless of the source - regardless of the process that occurred - it does appear we have something out there that I don't even know if we get a body - we'll get the straight skinny.  Imagine the DNA exploitations that these mad scientists could conduct with that as a starting point.

 

Problem with scientists is that they only ask the question, "Can we?"  And never ask the question, "Should we?"

[Guest DWA]

OK, I'll bite.  My mind is as open to the possibility that this might not exist as it is to the possibility that my entire life is a hologram.  Fair question fair answer.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

How open is your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong about this?

 

I know you were asking him, not me, but it's a question I've pondered so I'll answer anyway.   I'm following the data.   It's not about belief, not about what I want to find.   I've come to where I'm at by applying Occam's Razor to the mass of data, not to a single piece in a void.   When a single, consistent solution better fits the data than the one I have now, I will change my mind, but all the scoftics offer is a Rube Goldberg mix of arbitrarily labeling things misidentification, hoax, etc with less evidence, on a case by case basis, for their rationalization than exists for them being real, I'm not convinced and I'm not going there.   The second option would be influx of such a mass of data with different characteristics which appears valid, but outweighs what I've already seen, that a scientific approach requires change.    Both are technically possible but at this point, after this many years, with the amount and consistency of data already in hand, the probability of a better fit explanation or adequate data telling a radically new story appears vanishingly low.

 

A change of mind is possible, but it has to be scientifically warranted.   That's the yardstick it has to meet.   I'm open to it if it happens but I'm sure not holding my breath after this many years.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

Had I wanted to devote the words, and I like mine, but ^^^^works for me too.  Nice job.

[dmaker]

MIB, your approach seems to be one of probability and statistics. I suspect that is your background? Surely, you must recognise that it is possible for the witness reports to all be fabrications and mistakes and still yield the same data that you interpret as evidence of a real animal? 

[Guest DWA]

On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2011 at 7:27 PM, Guest said:

Bigfoot sees the cameras, or hears them, smells them, has intelligence enough to know what they are?

This could be put "stays away from areas of concentrated but short-term and unpredictable human activity. Feels too much like hunters."

Bigfoot is the most rare of all the animals in that area?

Could be; and we all know rare animals *rarely* show up on camera.  But they do...and more on that in a minute...

They are being captured but misidentified as bear or another animal?

Did you just say "Jacobs photos?" I know ya did.  Count on that being a strong possibility. We don't get to check their work, right?  We take their word for it...right...?

Seems to me, unless the first part of my post is true (hear, see, etc) and if they are there, they are being captured on the digital cameras, right?

And that's where my last possibility comes in:  they've got stuff they ain't showing.  And anyone who laughs at that:  thanks for buying my bridge, it's in the mail.

 

HEY!  this was way back there at the beginning!  BACK ON TOPIC.

[WSA]

When your percentage of probability for sighting reports being accurate is always going to be "zero", ANY constructed explanation is ALWAYS going to make more sense to you.  No matter how contrived. No matter how much it is contradicted by the history of human behavior . No matter that such being true would be unprecedented. No matter that their assessment is not supported by anything else other than "I believe."  What I've just described is the BF skeptics credo. 

 

Here's a question a skeptic will never, ever give you an answer to, so you can use this to judge who you are dealing with:  Cite me one example from recorded history where this number of people, for this length of time, have ever related substantially similar experiences in these numbers.

 

What you WILL get in return is plenty of misdirection, observations about collateral matters and side-stepping like Fred Astaire. Not the answer to this question, but it is o.k., because we all here know the answer: Ain't any such.

[Martin]

20 minutes ago, WSA said:

  Cite me one example from recorded history where this number of people, for this length of time, have ever related substantially similar experiences in these numbers.

 

 

Ghosts

UFOs

and all kinds of religious stigmata.

[Guest Starling]

3 hours ago, DWA said:

 

 

The only thing that matters here is WHETHER THE ANIMAL EXISTS.  [all caps for the reading-impaired!] Your opinion doesn't.  Mine doesn't.  And the evidence says:  you might want to pay more attention to the world around you if you don't agree with it.

 

 

 

 

You're right about this much...neither of our opinions amount to anything in the face of the truth. Which is the closest you've come yet to admitting that which I admit freely and happily...that your position, like mine, is not completely impenetrable.  That you, like me, may, in short, just maybe, perhaps be wrong. 

 

You see it's difficult to accept that I'm the one offering brick wall thinking (as you erroneously say) when the monumental edifice of your clear-cut certainty stands like Mount Rushmore with each of your posts. You've even gone so far as to claim you've read all there is to know about my thesis and that I have not. Which is frankly ludicrous. You know nothing about me, least of all the exact nature of my beliefs or perspective on this. How could you when you refuse to engage in any meaningful way? You can't convince anyone of anything when you're whole position is  'I'm right and you're wrong.'

 

There is merit in many of your arguments but it's hard to connect with them when they're ornamented in loud chest-beating, self-aggrandizing and the belittling of any opposing view which is usually, in my experience, an indication of someone operating from a position of insecurity. In other words I've seen a great deal of bluster but very little substance. All hot air and plaster casts you might say.

 

After all, again, for the hard of hearing, as you might say, I'm the one admitting I may be wrong. That is a starting point not a conclusion. Given that you've never seen one of these creatures I take it you don't claim to be a person who 'knows' definitively in the sense that other know-ers here do. So what are you armed with? Opinion . Which you yourself concede is utterly irrelevant to the existence of a huge hairy hominid that requires thousands of calories a day just to survive (unless of course you're claiming it doesn't) but has less traceable impact on its environment than a May fly.

 

All I'm saying is put down your bullhorn and take one small step in this direction and then, perhaps, we can have a conversation. Till then you might as well hit the ignore button as you've been intimating for some time will your next response. I suspect, however, that would be preferable to you. Real discussions can be scary things to those who are accustomed to telling people they're just plain wrong all the time even though they grudgingly admit that this is just there opinion which they then go on to concede is utterly irrelevant where the question of existence is concerned.

 

Here is a frank admission DWA. I joined this forum largely in the hope of engaging with you, out of all the other members here. I find your total faith and conviction in your beliefs compelling and the contradictions in your logic and rationalisations troubling and fascinating. Belief is a powerful motivator in the human psyche and is an enormous subject in itself. 

 

Again, all I wanted to do was have a grown-up conversation. If all you're offering is a petulant lecture then that, I assume, is all you come here to do and I've wasted my time. 

[WSA]

15 minutes ago, Martin said:

 

Ghosts

UFOs

and all kinds of religious stigmata.

Right, I forgot the ol' paranormal false equivalency dodge. Nicely done, aaaaand.....

 

Fail.

 

You've got a consistency issue with all of those, so no.  As for UFOs your record is pretty short, even if you include "Ancient Astronaut" tales, which also brings you back to a consistency problem again.  

 

(And understand I'm not passing judgment on the probability of any of these phenomena or the sufficiency of the evidence for any of them...I am not as informed about any of them. I merely note, from what I do know about them,  they don't match BF evidence for duration, consistency and sheer documented numbers)   

 

[SWWASAS]

The UFO issue is getting problematic for the government deniers.      Lots of stuff is starting to be declassified,    so much so that it cannot be squelched.    Other governments are telling what they know,   at last count, 4 US astronauts say they have had experiences or special knowledge about the existence of UFOs,   and security confidentiality contracts are expiring on those who signed them.       It is like a crack in a dam that is widening and soon will be a flood.    The full extent of the truth is probably beyond our comprehension.      The director of one aerospace companies black program said on his death bed,  that we are 50 years ahead of common knowledge about aerospace technology.   He said,  "Alien reverse engineering is to the point where we can give ET a ride back to his home planet."       There are those who claim to have been stationed on military bases on mars.    

[Guest Starling]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Right, I forgot the ol' paranormal false equivalency dodge. Nicely done, aaaaand.....

 

Fail.

 

You've got a consistency issue with all of those, so no.  As for UFOs your record is pretty short, even if you include "Ancient Astronaut" tales, which also brings you back to a consistency problem again.  

 

(And understand I'm not passing judgment on the probability of any of these phenomena or the sufficiency of the evidence for any of them...I am not as informed about any of them. I merely note, from what I do know about them,  they don't match BF evidence for duration, consistency and sheer documented numbers)   

 

 

 

1 hour ago, WSA said:

 

 

You've got a consistency issue with all of those, so no.  As for UFOs your record is pretty short, even if you include "Ancient Astronaut" tales, which also brings you back to a consistency problem again.  

 

 

 

 No consistency problem at all. It took all of ten or twenty years for the early space contactees to stop reporting tall, blonde hair humanoids from Venus to the post-Betty & Barney Hill  contact case (that is post Outer Limits episode - the Bellero Shield episode) and start reporting the more plausible short, almond eyed creatures we now refer to as the Grey's. For the majority of the period since then they have become the gold standard in ufology abduction cases. They follow the same consistent pattern with so many reports describing the same details, the same experiences and the same little critters. So much so that  their image had become synonymous with ETs. Psycho-social feedback in action. 

[Guest DWA]

1 hour ago, Starling said:

Again, all I wanted to do was have a grown-up conversation. If all you're offering is a petulant lecture then that, I assume, is all you come here to do and I've wasted my time. 

 

[facepalm]

 

If you cannot engage the evidence...you cannot be a grownup, here.

 

Flush button.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA