Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest Divergent1]

Science accepts someone's word when the experiment, exercise, or endeavor achieves repeatable results. Double standard there, if you deem scientists imperfect then that should apply equally to anyone else including the researcher's with NAWAC. Your analogy is ridiculous, banks and meetings actually exist, meeting a bigfoot is still up for debate. 

Edited April 3, 2015 by Divergent1

[BigTreeWalker]

Post it on the camera trap project website and ask "What is it?" is literally what they did...http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.jp/2014/01/what-is-it.html

Remember I emailed them about the ID of the image and they came back that it was a bear. They already knew what it was. This doesn't support your argument because we still don't know how they would handle an image they couldn't ID.

Also, on an aside, if I remember correctly you ID'd the image as a deer (I could be mistaken). This is a very good illustration of misinterpreting what we are seeing in a game cam image. I wonder how many times this has been done and how much has been ignored for this very same reason!

[Guest DWA]

Remember I emailed them about the ID of the image and they came back that it was a bear. They already knew what it was. This doesn't support your argument because we still don't know how they would handle an image they couldn't ID.

 

Right.  That was a quiz, not something they were looking for help on.  It's credulous in the extreme to think any group like this would just put saspic out there.  No they wouldn't.  I'd love one of them to prove me wrong.  But don't hold your breath.

Also, on an aside, if I remember correctly you ID'd the image as a deer (I could be mistaken). This is a very good illustration of misinterpreting what we are seeing in a game cam image. I wonder how many times this has been done and how much has been ignored for this very same reason!

 

I tell people:  there is no reason to think anyone is seeing bear and thinking sasquatch.  The way our minds work, we see sasquatch...and think bear.

Edited April 4, 2015 by DWA

[Faenor]

No it's NOT.  It is only on the proponents to lay virtual proof of the animal's reality at the feet of science.  This they have done.  And if you disagree, you are wrong.  I love how easy science can be, relying only on, you know, facts and all.

 .

YES IT IS! An outrageous wild claim of a global conspiracy by scientists or their invisible masters to hide and destroy bigfoot evidence demands proof by the proponents. If skeptics need to prove the nawac are a bunch of liars or the pgf needs to be recreated exactly to prove it was a hoax than proof of conspiracy needs to be laid at the feet skeptic town or we can brush it aside as nonsense.

The "virtual proof" is like the matrix it's all in your mind or machines controlling your mind whatever.

[norseman]

Post it on the camera trap project website and ask "What is it?" is literally what they did...http://cascadescarnivoreproject.blogspot.jp/2014/01/what-is-it.html

Thats not what I meant. What I meant was what if they had a clear image of a Sasquatch, which doesnt officially exist, what would they do?

Either way? a photo isnt going to solve much.

[Guest DWA]

YES IT IS! An outrageous wild claim of a global conspiracy by scientists or their invisible masters to hide and destroy bigfoot evidence demands proof by the proponents.

 

NO IT DOESN'T.  First of all, proponents don't care; it's happening, all we need to know.  Second of all; it's a red herring.  The animal is all the proponents care about.  You can have your fanciful theories and your pie in the sky assertions that an open-minded scientific community is *simply too mentally challenged* to find an eight-foot bipedal ape running around much of North America, seen by thousands of sober witnesses who are also finding its tracks.  (Which of course should have us questioning most of the other things scientists tell us, hmmmmm.  I mean, if they are that dumb.) 

 

I am sorry.  But one is forbidden by science to talk around the evidence.  One explains the evidence.  One does not explain it away.  Next!

 

If skeptics need to prove the nawac are a bunch of liars or the pgf needs to be recreated exactly to prove it was a hoax than proof of conspiracy needs to be laid at the feet skeptic town or we can brush it aside as nonsense.

 

You keep forgetting:  the proponents really need not care what the skeptics think.  The skeptics don't have an intellectually sustainable case; they even say that the core of their own proposition is something they cannot prove.  If one cannot prove what one asserts, the assertion is vacant from a scientific standpoint.  Really so sorry about that.

The "virtual proof" is like the matrix it's all in your mind or machines controlling your mind whatever.

 

And as long as one refuses to engage, one can continue saying silly things like that, with no regard for the smh one cannot cybersee.

[Guest DWA]

Oh.  And because sometimes the bad boy can't resist twisting the knife a bit, this:

 

Assertions of "outrageous claims" that scientists - O. M. G. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - actually suppress things they aren't comfortable with! display a truly touching degree of childlike credulity and faith.

 

OF COURSE THEY DO, and ALL THE TIME.  The history of science is all one needs consult.

The word "scientist" is actually overused.  There are relatively few true scientists (Einstein, that's your model; Richard Dawkins, if one wants someone still alive); the rest are glorified techies with science degrees who continually confuse

 

Science - a virtually perfect discipline - with

 

Scientists, the very imperfect people who blow its application on a pretty regular basis.

(And probably, as I said, a whole lot of whom aren't, exactly, scientists as the word is properly defined.)

[Guest Divergent1]

 

 

 

The word "scientist" is actually overused.  There are relatively few true scientists (Einstein, that's your model; Richard Dawkins, if one wants someone still alive); the rest are glorified techies with science degrees who continually confuse

 

Science - a virtually perfect discipline - with

 

Scientists, the very imperfect people who blow its application on a pretty regular basis.

(And probably, as I said, a whole lot of whom aren't, exactly, scientists as the word is properly defined.)

Next time you buy a carton of milk you will be taking Louis Pasteur for granted. The fact that you survived childhood: you can thank Jonas Salk, Edward Jenner, and Maurice Hilleman. The next time you get an infection, don't forget to thank Alexander Fleming. The list of scientists that contributed to your current lifestyle is obviously beyond your comprehension.

 

The only thing that amazes me here is that these "techies" that you are dismissing worked long and hard to keep people like you who demonstrate such astounding ignorance alive and well to procreate. What is even worse, you base that opinion on the fact that science doesn't agree with you about bigfoot's existence.....bigfoot, mind you.....yes, bigfoot. I don't think there are any adjectives that we aren't supposed to use here that can adequately describe your mind set. 

[Terry]

How do they miss the big foots?  Probably because there is a very good chance they don't exist.  Hopefully that's not the case but...

 

t.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Actually, no, given the evidence, which has never been explained in any other way, they exist, all right.  Nothing in the history of the planet with a pattern of evidence matching this has ever turned out to be anything other than just the kind of animal it appeared to be.

[Guest Divergent1]

Except the platypus. 

[Guest DWA]

Not, but if you are telling me that is the *only exception* you could come up with, I'd laugh and take it and still be right.

 

Platypus was an *animal,* wasn't it?  You are missing what happened:  scientists, *looking at the first specimen, right there,* thought that the bill *had* to be sewn on, it *had* to.

 

So...yeah.  Something similar *is* going on with sasquatch.  Thanks!

[Guest Divergent1]

The platypus isn't the only example where conclusions about what type of animal you expected to be dealing with proved to be wrong. You could look at any example of this type of situation both ways. Anyway, it's not about who is right or who is wrong but about how open minded and flexible one's thinking is when looking at the evidence. Any forgone conclusion without a body is just a guess. 

[Guest DWA]

But the evidence says, clearly, that we should be pulling out all stops to get that body, because bodies are out there to get.

[Guest Divergent1]

Let me remind you of the most recent April fools joke that fooled you DWA, I'm just saying......