Faenor Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 [quote name="DWA" post="898240" timestamp="1427720750" It's a *challenge*, gang. When one enters a thesis in a scientific discussion, one must provide evidence backing the thesis. Period. I have never seen, in a half-century, a scrap of evidence backing the skeptical thesis of a comprehensive false positive. So how in the heck could I consider it possible? What evidence backs the monograph? The lack of pictures and scat or the blood and hair samples magically lost by the unknown lab doing the testing. Or is it all those glorious rocks? 10 years looking all those sightings and not a single picture. Gosh when bigfoot is around the cameras just aren't up or on or working. The level of bungling hasn't been seen since bindernagels Sasquatch fiction. Springs on another wood ape game is afoot in area x. What comes this year an ape orange peeling station, a juvenile doing the lindy hop, senior citizens lost in the woods having an infarction from another nawac missidentification shooting.
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I've actually looked into papers pertaining to the Ouachitas ecosystem. Found a cool one on bears involving radio tagging plus another on the small mammal assemblage. I'm sure there are more but if you think those mountains are all surveyed out you may be mistaken. Even the state park websites are woefully lacking in decent info on flora and fauna. I don't doubt it, We have had tremendous budget cuts starting over the last couple of decades. Humans aren't doing this. Know how I know? The scenario that would require humans to be doing this, which skeptics never seem to understand the need to conjure in their heads. Is there another North American species we know of that does this? No. The ones that we know of that do? Apes. Humans fall in the ape category, What about the scenario makes you think that human intervention is impossible?
Guest DWA Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Assessing it. Would anyone, really thinking about it, *really* think that humans would be capable of doing this, for this sustained period of time, with no lights and zero slipups, with people they'd have to know were intent on killing them, even given the special, superhuman powers they'd need to do it (which are well within the range for wild primates)? Anyone who would make that *the first option* either isn't reading, or thinks that sasquatch is way way more impossible than it is, which there is no reason to think. No one seriously thinking about this, in other words, rejects the monograph based on "humans could do this," any more than one rejects all the other evidence based just on that. That's a serious dereliction of scientific duty. When everything we know about humans says "reject that," and everything we know about the great apes says "consider that," one has to reject that, and consider that.
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 A serious derelection of scientific duty is to ignore other possibilities creating a bias for what you already think causes the activity.
Guest DWA Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Nope. Scientists *investigate the likeliest possibility first* rather than sit on their hands waiting for amateurs to assure them that the impossible stuff is not happening. Scientists also *act like the opinions of relevant scientists have actually been offered,* and address them. Unless science just started operating differently last week.
WSA Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 Absotively DWA....and one thing good science, and good scientist, never, never, never will say is...."Because this other evidence we want to see hasn't happened yet, we are going to discount all the evidence that has already happened...even though we don't have a rational and coherent explanation for it." Lots of trouble hereabouts could be avoided by internalizing this key, elementary, concept.
Guest DWA Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) And that, absolutely. If considering - and I mean actually considering - the real-world likelihood of the alternatives to the unlisted animal were actually done, we'd have confirmed sasquatch long ago. What evidence backs the monograph? The lack of pictures and scat or the blood and hair samples magically lost by the unknown lab doing the testing. Or is it all those glorious rocks?10 years looking all those sightings and not a single picture. Gosh when bigfoot is around the cameras just aren't up or on or working. The level of bungling hasn't been seen since bindernagels Sasquatch fiction.Springs on another wood ape game is afoot in area x. What comes this year an ape orange peeling station, a juvenile doing the lindy hop, senior citizens lost in the woods having an infarction from another nawac missidentification shooting. You did not say "no proof yet" in many more words, one more time. You didn't. You really didn't. Did you. And you didn't read Bindernagel either, so stop with that. You are just sounding incredibly frustrated with not getting proof on your personal schedule. Stopping to consider why is a really enlightening exercise. I'd try it, personally. Edited March 30, 2015 by DWA
Faenor Posted March 30, 2015 Posted March 30, 2015 I'd be happy with some decent evidence a picture some stool even a decent collection of foot prints would be nice. If the nawac could get something a quarter as good as the pgf I could see some crowing. But they have a turd even though it's a well polished turd it's not an apple. Never mind that I want the proof! Show me the money! You can't handle the truth!
Guest Divergent1 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) If I understood the description right, the cabin sits in a hollow between two very steep hills, am I correct? Edited March 31, 2015 by Divergent1
norseman Posted March 31, 2015 Admin Posted March 31, 2015 I'd be happy with some decent evidence a picture some stool even a decent collection of foot prints would be nice. If the nawac could get something a quarter as good as the pgf I could see some crowing. But they have a turd even though it's a well polished turd it's not an apple. Never mind that I want the proof! Show me the money! You can't handle the truth! You'd be happy with some plaster casts and a photo?????? In what parallel universe do you reside?
Yuchi1 Posted March 31, 2015 Posted March 31, 2015 If I understood the description right, the cabin sits in a hollow between two very steep hills, am I correct? In coordinating the LeFlore county plat map of the Branson 10 acre plot and Google Earth photo's, it appears his (Branson) property is relatively flat as it pretty much sits on the north side of the mountaintop, adjacent to the K trail. IMO, I suspect the NAWAC bunch has been traipsing on the adjacent landowners and it would be interesting to learn if they have trespass permission for said ground. I know they do not on the lease and Rough Canyon is located basically NNW (~200 yards north) of the Branson plot as the north face of the mountain begins to decend downward at our fence line located at the top of Rough Canyon where the incline begins in earnest.
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Oh do you own property near there? Nope. Scientists *investigate the likeliest possibility first* rather than sit on their hands waiting for amateurs to assure them that the impossible stuff is not happening. Scientists also *act like the opinions of relevant scientists have actually been offered,* and address them. Unless science just started operating differently last week. " Likeliest possibility" those are your two key words right there, whether you believe Sasquatch exists, or not. I had asked before if you had been out to Area X but I never got a clear answer so I'm assuming you are assured that the impossible stuff is actually happening while you stay at home and sit on your hands. I have yet to see you address anything, so moving forward, I'm going to assume your opinion is irrelevant in all of this DA. Edited April 1, 2015 by Divergent1
Guest DWA Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 (edited) Nope. See, this is the problem with bigfoot skeptics: if you haven't seen the proof your opinion doesn't count. (And why, um, should, er, YOURS?) One diff between you and me: I understand the evidence. You don't. So, to somebody who wants to understand what all this is about, I.e., somebody who wants to know how to *think about* things like this, my opinion is, in fact, *critical.* Green Quote down there. Dave's got it. And I'm there too. Others confronting this topic are, however...hosed. That's just it. I haven't been sitting on my hands. I have been assiduously sifting sorting and gathering understanding. Might want to get started. Edited April 1, 2015 by DWA
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 The only skepticism I have is of people and their subsequent perception of things and motivations. I simply asked you to explain how you know what you know not having experienced it first hand or actually witnessing the events out at Area X, or any bigfoot type related events that I'm aware of, to draw your conclusions. It's not a hard question. Simply reading, sifting, sorting, cogitating, ruminating, pondering, reflecting, deliberating, considering, meditating, contemplating on what someone says or writes is not teaching yourself how to think. Based on what you post, you mentally discard many things, or they get overlooked, it's no wonder that you conclude " IT's BIGFOOT" for every odd thing that happens. That shouldn't happen if you are truly using critical thinking skills. As far as I can tell, you still have a long way to go on that learning curve.
Guest DWA Posted April 1, 2015 Posted April 1, 2015 ^^^^This is speaking to a need to practice more reading, sifting, sorting, cogitating, ruminating, pondering, reflecting, deliberating, considering, meditating, contemplating etc. than you are doing. Including this simple sentence: What else could be doing this, ...and what is your evidence???? And I'm really sorry that "people, because burden of proof on you," is not a satisfactory response. It just isn't, not because me, but because science. Every entrant must provide evidence. The proponents are doing it. That the skeptics are not means their thesis may be handily discarded. Not because me. Because science. (Might want to read your GrayQuote. It'll help you imagine why there is no reason to believe people are doing this.)
Recommended Posts