Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[dmaker]

3 hours ago, DWA said:

And their findings are UNCONTESTED. Because contesting scientific findings requires EVIDENCE.

Kind of requires peer review as well. Too bad not one of your bigfoot heroes has attempted to publish bigfoot research in any peer reviewed journals.

3 hours ago, DWA said:

Don't contest findings, and they stand.

Again, where were those findings presented? 

 

Are those findings falsifiable? 

 

Those are some clues for you to ponder as to why no one has "countered" the findings. Peer review is not done on Amazon and at bigfoot conventions. 

Edited June 18, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest Starling]

2 hours ago, Night Walker said:

 

So if DWA has put me on his Ignore list and then writes posts alluding to everyone on his ignore list is that the sound one hand clapping?

[Guest DWA]

FOOLS FOOLS YOU WILL ALL DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE FOOLS FOOLS TWO BLUE LINES TWO YOU WILL ALL DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE FOOLS FOOLS.

 

Okee fine sure.

[Guest DWA]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:55 AM, Starling said:

OK, I think bigfoot skeptics are fun-NY.  Here's a sample.  Let's parse, class.

 

Addendum: Plenty of forensic evidence for Grey's. Plenty. Recovered implants, physical marks on abductees, the usual indistinct video footage, endless consistency in reports (something you in your misguided approach hold a lot of store by). In other words exactly the same vast but inconclusive pool of evidence as there is for Bigfoot. But, no, science has failed us there as well. Only it has not. 

OK, class.  Greys.  GREYS.  Since when have I *ever* discussed that here?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm?  And all I have to do - HAVING NEVER, keep in mind, cared or thought a minute about this - is say to our scoftic friend here:  endless consistency, SAYS YOU.  Vast.  SAYS YOU.  If this is so...why  are you *dismissing it without evidence that it is dismissable,* not a jot of which you have cited, nor will ever cite based strictly on track record, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?  (Keep in mind that this guy came here utterly ignorant of the sasquatch evidence.) Must not be that consistent, says me.  Must not be vast, says me.  But who knows or in my case, cares? You are on *my turf* now, scoftic, and I pronounce sentence on you two ways.

1.  The evidence pattern for sasquatch has only one parallel in the history of our species, and it is this:  ANIMALS WE HAVE CONFIRMED.  Gavel:  WHAM!

2.   DO NOT DRAG RED HERRINGS ACROSS MY PATH, scoftic, lest ye be fried.  One of two things is obvious about Greys:  either they and abductions are real, and how would you know otherwise, hmmmmmmmm? or the evidence - which keep in mind I have never perused nor cared about - isn't what you tell me it is, scoftic.  Gavel:  WHAM!  Lesson, which, ye contemplate along with those tire tracks over your body:  STICK TO THE SUBJECT.

 

A psycho-social explanation accounts not only for the evidence

...WHEN I HAVE SHOWN HIM IT DOESN'T, AND PRECISELY WHY.  No, it does not.  Bigfoot isn't even mentioned in those studies which I have read; and if perchance I have forgotten a mention of bigfoot here's why:  they don't go to the eyewitness literature, and *prove it,* which you **** well need to do.  Gavel:  WHAM!

 

 

Quote

but also the frustratingly ambiguous nature of what evidence there is and the miraculous abilities of the supposed subject. The razor categorically doesn't slice on the proponents side of the fence. In a way this is understandable as myopia tends to make people narrow thinkers.

Like, you know, Greys Anatomy Boy here.  The miraculous abilities are not something held otherwheres than the non-scientific fringes of this topic, but he wouldn't know that, would he, class?  And he wouldn't know it, but I am demonstrating here that *he is cutting himself* with that razor, and razors shouldn't be in the wrong hands.  And we've already talked about what failure to pay attention to the normal curve can do to the unwary, i.e., what it is doing to Starling.  Gavel: WHAM!

 

In fact I'd go as far as to say that by DWA's standards there's more accumulated evidence for the existence of Grey's than any other 'unproven' in history.

 

Says you, scoftic, and stick to the topic.  Gavel:  WHAM!

 

What this doesn't prove is that they don't, like Bigfoot, fall neatly and very comfortably  into the same mythical strata of human consciousness previously occupied by gnomes and leprechauns. He can pat himself on the back all he wants, but until he proves just one of his beloved reports an accurate reflection of the REAL physical world we all occupy, he might as well be chasing little green men, godzilla or the fabled unicorn.

As all scientists know, denying the existence of something is anti-science.  Gavel:  WHAM!

Any questions, class?  I didn't think so.

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

Bigfoot isn't even mentioned in those studies which I have read

This one mentions bigfoot many times. As do many other similar papers. Perhaps you should read them and explain to us all how they cannot account for any witness report?

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/eyewitness_to_the_paranormal_the_experimental_psychology_of_the_unexplained

 

Some peer reviewed papers (they mention bigfoot):

 

Paranormal Encounters as Eyewitness Phenomena: Psychological Determinants of Atypical Perceptual Interpretations

 

Cognition and belief in paranormal phenomena: gestalt/feature-intensive processing theory and tendencies toward ADHD, depression, and dissociation.

 

There are many more, but I doubt you will read them. 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by dmaker

[Twist]

^^ Your wasting your time.  He's only here to troll the boards.  I just haven't decided if I believe him to be someone's alternate joke account or not.  

 

Im surely not convinced he's sincere about the actual subject at hand here.  There's zero substance to his posts, just him banging his drum against skeptics and scientists.  

[Guest Starling]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

^^ Your wasting your time.  He's only here to troll the boards.  I just haven't decided if I believe him to be someone's alternate joke account or not.  

 

Im surely not convinced he's sincere about the actual subject at hand here.  There's zero substance to his posts, just him banging his drum against skeptics and scientists.  

 

 

Plenty of substance but to use your argument you'll never find if you don't look. The degree of woolly minded denial here is worse than I thought. 

[Guest DWA]

As Starling has two blue lines up there, and I am banking that neither is an apology for blowing it, I am going to translate for him in a more condensed fashion befitting what may be callow naivete.

 

1.  Man, you never dredge up something from another topic and bring it to this one unless you prove and that is PROVE it is relevant.  Fail.

2.  You showed me, by the very way you treated what you brought here, that you gave it no more attention than you gave this.  Fail.

3.  Stick to the topic, and get acquainted with how to discuss it or:

 

Fail.

[Guest Starling]

Man you just keep banging that gavel on your fingers. You treated me with contempt DWA so don't expect any further respect from me. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Starling
Bring to compliance

[Drew]

On 6/16/2017 at 7:58 AM, Twist said:

 

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

 

What some call a 'Clear visual sighting'  might not be either clear, or visual.

 

Our minds are wired to show us things that aren't real, in order to help us survive.  

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

This misidentifying is nothing more than a red herring. It is intended to assuage those who are non-believers.

 

Maybe a soft-fingered, computer geek from Manhattan could be convinced he didn't really see what he saw.  The little geek wouldn't know a flower from a rock.

 

If I had a sighting, there is no one alive who could convince me what I really saw was a bear on two legs. I've spent too much time int he woods.

Edited June 22, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[Guest DWA]

If you think a bear or a cow or a horse can be misidentified as a bigfoot, you should mistake your front door for your car every now and then, which I am betting doesn't happen.

 

Much.  Maybe to bigfoot skeptics.

[dmaker]

Wasn't there a famous report from NWT that ended up (no pun intended) being a moose behind?

[WSA]

As with all of this stuff we discuss around here, probabilities rule. Never-ever-always statements, and similar absolutes are things I try to avoid like the plague. Science does too...or should.   Have there been misidentifications? The probabilities are bound to be good some have been made over the last century or so.  But every sighting? That is a level of consistency I've never experienced in any other area of human behavior in my entire life, and absent from all the history I've read so far (i.e., "lots"). Which leaves us a high probability there has been at least one accurate sighting of a Sasquatch.  Vegas would probably only pay you even money to bet that side.  One is all that has ever been required to blow the entire skeptic thesis out of the water and to smithereens.   

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Which is why "skepticism" as practiced here...really isn't.  It's faith in something.

 

As is much "belief in science," in which science is presented as a pile of facts.  Which are not "facts" in the way bigfoot skeptics think.

 

ALL SCIENCE IS CONJECTURE!  Or, as a scientist once put it to me:  scientific fact is a set of *conditional* truths, backed by evidence.  Understanding that is essential to understanding science.  (So is this:  most of what you 'know' is *what you have been told.*)

 

I keep saying, essentially, this:  the only things for which this pattern of evidence exists are *animals science has confirmed;* and *denial* is the only counterthesis.  Both are facts, and both are scientifically demonstrable, and done, many times here.