Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Twist]

If you can't conceive the idea of someone coming to a different conclusion than yourself in regards to subjective evidence, you cannot be a grownup, here.

[Guest DWA]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

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. 

I've gone from gonging scoftics (just put another one on Ignore) to double-emphasizing what the truly interested and engaged say about this.  ^^^THAT.  If you don't come to a scientific topic with an open mind, you've come with half a brain.  This requires nuance and learning you ain't gonna touch.  There is nothing in bigfoot skepticism that *isn't* contradicted by all human experience.  But one has to think about this to get that.

 

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.

If I've said it once it's a million times:  never has there been anything like this in human annals that wasn't pretty much what it appeared to be.  As much a challenge as a statement of fact.  Takers?  Zilch.

 

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.

And I am getting less and les inclined to exchange three posts with somebody that gives me that.

 

22 minutes ago, DWA said:

  2 hours ago, Starling said:

...and I meant to say:  I'd originally quoted ^^^this entire post as a textbook example of the exact opposite of an adult conversation.  But I didn't want to dignify one of the most overweening condescending trowelfuls of claptrap I have endured here with a repeat.  Particularly from someone shown, conclusively, that his stance is wrong and either unable or unwilling to tackle the work of science.  Too bad, that.

Edited June 15, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

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.

Belief cannot contradict evidence. Real evidence. Hard evidence. To paraphrase Dr. Disotell (and the signature of someone here): I won't take your word for it, and I don't want your crappy picture. Show me real data.

 

That is something footers should take more direction from.

[Martin]

2 hours ago, WSA said:

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

 

Fail.

 

 

2 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

The UFO issue is getting problematic for the government deniers.     

 

WSA..  Meet your bigfooters.

[Guest DWA]

2 hours ago, Starling said:

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. 

 

Because I like roasting carcasses...that is what 'condescending' sounds like.

 

From somebody who came here with a half-baked thesis *not his own* and *demonstrably not applicable to the subject matter* to do just what he accuses others of:  WRONG WRONG WRONG!

 

Not happening.

[Twist]

6 minutes ago, DWA said:

Because I like roasting carcasses...that is what 'condescending' sounds like.

 

From somebody who came here with a half-baked thesis *not his own* and *demonstrably not applicable to the subject matter* to do just what he accuses others of:  WRONG WRONG WRONG!

 

Not happening.

 

If you can't conceive the idea of someone coming to a different conclusion than yourself in regards to subjective evidence and feel "roasting carcasses" is the way to approach said difference of opinions, you cannot be a grownup, here.

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

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).

Denial in what though ?  Denial in the sighting it self ! I do not see them as some type of alien or some type of creature from outer space. But feel like they were here way before we were as Humans and this is where the  cognitive dissonance falls in place. It is after the sighting that changes the person. If we are told that these creatures are not suppose to exist and here we see them in the flesh then how is one suppose to process this. If our understanding only goes to what does exist but some thing of this magnitude shows it self then how are we to process this.

 

If people are having a hard time processing what is not suppose to exist now what will happen when it does ? Some of these reports are from way back then and are now being reported . So what are we to make of those witnesses who have held back on what they have seen. When I came forward I was excited to report what I had seen and experienced but was met with criticism. The thought that I had at the time was I believed I was under the impression I was doing good. But that is not the belief at the time and that is not the belief in the present.

 

If we are to as grown ups , then we should go at this in a scientific way. There should be no exception to this rule. It has been said over and over and it is the only way that proving these creatures are for real. In science there no bickering only proof. Science has always shown the truth. Truth is science, science is truth. 

[Twist]

19 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

 

If people are having a hard time processing what is not suppose to exist now what will happen when it does ? Some of these reports are from way back then and are now being reported . So what are we to make of those witnesses who have held back on what they have seen. When I came forward I was excited to report what I had seen and experienced but was met with criticism. The thought that I had at the time was I believed I was under the impression I was doing good. But that is not the belief at the time and that is not the belief in the present.

 

If we are to as grown ups , then we should go at this in a scientific way. There should be no exception to this rule. It has been said over and over and it is the only way that proving these creatures are for real. In science there no bickering only proof. Science has always shown the truth. Truth is science, science is truth. 

 

^^^ Not according to DWA !

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Science is the study of observable reality. It's not quite synonymous with truth. As far as "proof" goes, it's important to understand that the strength of evidence is a matter of interpretation. In the scientific community, it's a matter of consensus. Some people have already identified what they could correctly call "proof" or convincing evidence. 

[Twist]

I'd put it at,  okay evidence, zero rock solid proof.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It's really a matter of interpretation. I could consider something to be weak evidence based on my evaluation of the interpretation, yet someone else might see it differently if they're able to understand something about it that I can't. To them, that same evidence might be very supportive of whatever theory. 

[Twist]

Absolutely that's correct.  That's why in most posts I try to put some kind of emphasis that's it's all subjective.  To non legit knowers, those of us that just believe, we should 100% be open to the possibility we are wrong.  If you don't "truly know" i.e. Legit clear visual sighting, you should not speak from a position of authority.  Of course, that's just IMO.

[hiflier]

And once again folks, while all of this is being bantered and batted around.....AGAIN....and AGAIN.....nothing gets done. Good job. Starling, DWA, and the rest. WHEN is enough enough? Apparently never. <SIGH> The necro threads should be glaringly evident that progress is....wait for it....ZERO.

 

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Science is the study of observable reality

 

WHOO BOY can I ever see a perfect opportunity to revert everything back to square one with that statement. What's say we all go back to first post launching BFF 1.0 and all of us begin again. I'm sure if we do then.......NAH......everything will just end up where it is now so why bother. Welcome to GROUND HOG DAY LOL. All the videos, all the images, all the posts, all the threads.....ground hog day. Humans. Adults. And this is the best we can do? Pull in the 'dmakers' the Squatchy Mcsquatches' and the rest? It's not their fault they are here. It's ours. Mine, everyone's. In a way, I welcome them and am glad they continue to hold up the mirror. Someday they may eat their words but until then it's not looking like they are going to anytime soon. Maybe next year. Next decade? Never?...........................................Oops. Pardon me.......ahem: 

 

Let the adult discussions continue. Don't let a simpleton like myself get in your way. Heh, heh.

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

" Science is the study of observable reality. It's not quite synonymous with truth. As far as "proof" goes, it's important to understand that the strength of evidence is a matter of interpretation. In the scientific community, it's a matter of consensus. Some people have already identified what they could correctly call "proof" or convincing evidence.  "

OS

I understand what you are saying here  that " science is the study of observable reality " . But in order for science to be an observable reality it has to be proven true in some form. The strength of evidence comes from the proven methods of science : https://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

 

 

" What's say we all go back to first post launching BFF 1.0 and all of us begin again "

Hiflier

Why would we want to go back to that h*ll where people who witnessed these creatures did not even want to post their encounters. We have come a long way from that  mess. But we have gained a better prospective of these creatures now then back then. I would say that we are closer now then back then of gaining a body for study. The more that technology improves the better our chances become. We have learned more now then back then .It is only a matter of time . It only takes one well placed shot and a person with nerves of steel to place it who is not willing to make a dime or go public. It is going to happen and it is a matter of time when it does. The ahem will only happen if it ever gets out in the open when one gets killed and it is shown on national T.V. But either way it should all be documented for history and for science. That's if the body does not get confiscated by any Government Agency. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Playlist

 

 

Close

Next Up

 

Why Opium Poppy Fields Are Rare in the US

 

 

00:2101:5101:30

 

 

 

 

 

01:51

 

• Auto
• 1080p
• 720p
• 406p
• 270p
• 180p

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

It should be easy to understand that science is defined by the scientific method (I.e. make an observation, then study the observation). It's not the unobservable that science is applied to.

 

The strength of evidence is measured by evaluating how well it supports the presented theory, and that's done by determining the likelihood of competing possibilities. For example, if you find a footprint, and determine that it's almost certainly not hoaxed or created by something else, then that footprint may then be considered to be very strong evidence. In reality, it can be difficult to determine that a footprint wasn't hoaxed, especially to others who weren't even there.