Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Drew]

10 hours ago, Twist said:

 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.

 

What if I told you, that a 'clear visual sighting', does not always mean clear, visual sighting?

[Twist]

11 minutes ago, Drew said:

 

What if I told you, that a 'clear visual sighting', does not always mean clear, visual sighting?

 

Such as being hoaxed by others ?  What's the scenario you are envisioning?

Edited June 16, 2017 by Twist

[dmaker]

8 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It's not the unobservable that science is applied to.

 

How does one observe aliens creating bigfoot?

13 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

see it differently if they're able to understand

Their "understanding" needs to be demonstrable, testable and repeatable. Otherwise, who cares what they think they understand?

2 hours ago, Twist said:

 

Such as being hoaxed by others ?  What's the scenario you are envisioning?

I would imagine things such as delusion, hallucination, or outright lying. 

[Guest DWA]

10 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

 

 

" 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.

 

It is not just technology. Although that is important; databases alone, man.  It is an ever-increasing volume of reports and track finds, with the consistency *increasing,* about which only two things may be said:

1.  When volume and consistency are high, evidence is compelling, period; and

2.  No report can be tossed without dem scoftics out there PROVING IT A FALSE POSITIVE, that is science, and done with that.

I'd agree that the vast majority of the BFF needs 101.  But some of us don't; we're there.  We've graduated.  And however cool it is to be on the farthest frontier of the biological sciences, with only a few scientists like oneself, more people listening would be good.  For them, I mean, because they sure seem frustrated, don't they. As always, science holds the key.  Just gotta DO it, people.

 

10 hours ago, ShadowBorn said:

 

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. 

And that confiscation thing?  NEVER underestimate the power of denial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twist]

12 minutes ago, dmaker said:

I would imagine things such as delusion, hallucination, or outright lying. 

 

I assume he means that as well.  I'm working under the assumption ( dangerous I know ) that said legit knower truly believes their clear visual was a living breathing creature thus in their opinion they are a knower.  Yes, they could be delusional or wrong, but in their mind what they saw was the real deal.  

[dmaker]

Ah, but how do you identify the "legit knower"? That is the problem. As soon as you assume honesty on their part, you create a challenge for yourself. Why assume such? How do you know they truly believe? You cannot. This is one of the main reasons why anecdotes are useless. They must begin with a basic assumption to be of any value whatsoever. 

 

People lie all the time. And in sometimes where you would least expect it. For example, I enjoy watching stolen valor busts on the Internet. Don Shipley is a retired SEAL and he does a fantastic job of calling these clowns out. The added bonus is that it's very entertaining to watch and fascinating from a psychology perspective. My point being that often these people are leaders in their community. Clergymen, even. They construct their lives around a lie and gain status and privilege based on those lies. 

 

Put into that perspective, lying for bigfoot kicks does not seem like a huge stretch. Without evidence, I give no anecdote any quarter whatsoever.

26 minutes ago, DWA said:

2.  No report can be tossed without dem scoftics out there PROVING IT A FALSE POSITIVE, that is science, and done with that.

Toss it, don't toss it. Print it out and make a hat out of it, who cares? They don't prove anything.

Edited June 16, 2017 by dmaker

[Twist]

33 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Ah, but how do you identify the "legit knower"? That is the problem. As soon as you assume honesty on their part, you create a challenge for yourself. Why assume such? How do you know they truly believe? You cannot. This is one of the main reasons why anecdotes are useless. They must begin with a basic assumption to be of any value whatsoever. 

 

People lie all the time. And in sometimes where you would least expect it. For example, I enjoy watching stolen valor busts on the Internet. Don Shipley is a retired SEAL and he does a fantastic job of calling these clowns out. The added bonus is that it's very entertaining to watch and fascinating from a psychology perspective. My point being that often these people are leaders in their community. Clergymen, even. They construct their lives around a lie and gain status and privilege based on those lies. 

 

Put into that perspective, lying for bigfoot kicks does not seem like a huge stretch. Without evidence, I give no anecdote any quarter whatsoever.

Toss it, don't toss it. Print it out and make a hat out of it, who cares? They don't prove anything.

 

Thats all absolutely correct, I do not know who is a legit knower or a liar.  I take every  report I read with a grain of salt as I expect all people to do with my encounter.  Were it not for my possible encounter, which admittedly was not visual, I would probably wholly be on the skeptical side of this debate. 

 

So as a believer but not knower I at least try to consider reports possible but not definitive.  

 

I'm 100% open to the possibility this whole thing is mythical and I along with all the others have been hoaxed, delusional, lying, or misidentified a known animal.  Yet I still hold to my belief, irrational or not lol. To err is human, none of us are above it.

[Guest DWA]

14 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

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. 

But there is something more here, something one can count on no scoftic to get because they are demonstrably lazy and shun all work:  It is volume and consistency that tell.

 

Ben Radford, a leading bigfoot skeptic whom I found no more difficult to chew up and spit out than any of them here, once called bigfoot evidence like coffee:  a hundred cups of weak coffee is still weak coffee.  Nothing could more misstate the case.  Emblematic of the scientific subtlety that must be brought to this field is the following, which one must understand to be a player:  One piece of evidence could be anything.  (By itself, IOW, weak coffee.)  But one hundred of them, or 4000, consistent ones?  That is something completely different.  And IT ALMOST DOES NOT MATTER WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE IT IS.

 

Here's where we lose the scoftics.  How, they ask, can a skull or a bone that scientists recognize as proof be no more powerful than a story?  WRONG QUESTION.  A skull or a bone can be tested against what we know.  A story cannot. (Unless you immediately hop horse and Apprehend The Unicorn your informant is pointing at.) But a large volume of consistent stories?  They flat scream LOOK HERE, STUPID!  To believe anything else is to infer that the entire human population consists of severe mental cripples.  No, it is.  These encounters would have to be essentially random; they aren't selecting the gullible or the stupid and one only has to read them to see that.  It's simple statistics; if the entire sample is dunderheads, WE ALL ARE.  Just ask Gallup.

 

And if the entire sample is a mixed bag of dunderheads liars hoaxers and hallucinators:  THE CONSISTENCY IS NO WAY HAPPENING.

 

(The reason we knowledgeable know this:  WE READ THEM, and *think* about them, and bring the mental ammo to do it. That this is all concocted may be one of the craziest things humans have ever thought.  Just you haven't thought about it, scoftic, and thus don't know that.)

 

So what you have with a huge volume of consistent reports - to say nothing of a huge volume of consistent FORENSIC EVIDENCE pointing to the thing people are reporting - is something every bit as powerful as a WHOLE INTACT SKELETON.  We knowledgeable know this because we have seen scientists pursue evidence far FAR skimpier than this to discovery after discovery.

 

And when you come here yelling BS to all this?  You are entering a battle of wits...unarmed.  Total objectivity there, sorry. And if that hurts, ask yourself what your attitude feels like to someone who saw one and KNOWS YOU'RE WRONG.  When I smack you around...it's just *** for tat, didn't mean nuthin' by it.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

15 minutes ago, Twist said:

To err is human, none of us are above it.

Agreed. 

 

I think if I had some sort of ambiguous experience in the past prior to learning more about this subject, then I may have approached with more of a potential believer bias. Without such a thing, prolonged exposure to the community and to the "evidence", such as it is, pretty much sealed the case for me. 

 

I often chuckle at polls when people trot them out. I've been guilty of it too, but what kind of picture do they really paint? X number of people believe bigfoot to be real, for example. Really, though, how many of that percentage have given it any thought, or read up on the natural science involved to adequately answer that poll question? I think that number would be hugely reduced if people actually spent some time learning just how untenable the bigfoot hypothesis really is. At least those that didn't outright laugh and dismiss it in the first place. 

6 minutes ago, DWA said:

Total objectivity there, sorry. And if that hurts,

Trust me, it does not.

Edited June 16, 2017 by dmaker

[Twist]

2 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Agreed. 

 

I think if I had some sort of ambiguous experience in the past prior to learning more about this subject, then I may have approached with more of a potential believer bias. Without such a thing, prolonged exposure to the community and to the "evidence", such as it is, pretty much sealed the case for me. 

 

I often chuckle at polls when people trot them out. I've been guilty of it too. But what kind of picture do they really paint? X number of people believe bigfoot to be real, for example. Really, though, how many of that percentage have given it any thought or read up on the natural science involved to adequately answer that poll question? I think that number would be hugely reduced if people actually spent some time learning just how untenable the bigfoot hypothesis really is. At least those that didn't outright laugh and dismiss it in the first place. 

 

To be honest the more I dive into the subject I do find myself considering the whole topic a myth but I'm yet to let go of my belief based I guess on my own interpretation of what I experienced.

 

I often roll my eyes when other proponents make claims of the paranormal type, portals, shape shifting etc.  more often than not I'm more at odds with proponents and their extreme claims than I am with skeptics.  If this thing exists I believe it to be very rare and elusive, not in every state, county and town. The self proclaimed experts here also do not sit well with me.  If anything, at best there are some that are very well informed of potential evidence and well versed in the history of BF, that's where I draw the line. No one can be an expert in Bigfootery until we truly document and classify this thing.  All the reading of reports and looking at castings will never amount to more than roadsigns on where and how to look for this thing.

[dmaker]

30 minutes ago, Twist said:

All the reading of reports and looking at castings will never amount to more than roadsigns on where and how to look for this thing.

Agreed. That the road never ends is a personal journey, I guess. Some have chosen to draw a finish line and race across while popping champagne corks while the rest of us notice his engine isn't even started.

 

Kinda like this

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by dmaker

[Incorrigible1]

You're on a roll, Twist. I appreciate the wisdom in your postings.

 

Unlike the self-aggrandizing so rampant here, especially on the necro-postings.

[Twist]

13 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Agreed. That the road never ends is a personal journey, I guess. Some have chosen to draw a finish line and race across while popping champagne corks while the rest of us notice his engine isn't even started.

 

For some it's more about pontificating their ideas and looking down on others.  I'm not 100% convinced that some even believe their own claims, they just need any soapbox to yell from.  Here is an ambiguous topic that neither side as of yet can concretely prove the other wrong on.  The perfect platform for the holier than thou type.

 

10 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

You're on a roll, Twist. I appreciate the wisdom in your postings.

 

Unlike the self-aggrandizing so rampant here, especially on the necro-postings.

 

Thanks, I just try to apply as much sound, IMO, logic to the discussions.

[Guest Starling]

16 hours 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.

 

You forgot to include the part about how you were sticking your fingers in your ears.

 

So much for discussion and dialogue. Condescension personified. 

[dmaker]

7 minutes ago, Twist said:

For some it's more about pontificating their ideas and looking down on others

Very true. I try not to do that. Sometimes my position on the subject puts me in a pejorative light, but it's not intentionally so on my part. When someone screams at you "So, you think all witnesses are either lying or mistaken??!??", it's hard for me to reply without coming across negatively. If I don't think bigfoot is real, then what other alternatives are there? It's not deliberate arrogance or belittling. But when you question belief, particularly one unsupported with evidence, you can instantly become the villain. 

 

Whereas, others go out of their way to be arrogant and condescending.