Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[ShadowBorn]

3 hours ago, Starling said:

But there are other possibilities beyond the giant flesh and blood creature you insist upon.

Starling

What other possibilities did you find in reading the reports other then it being Flesh and Blood? The evidence that I have found and what I have seen points to a flesh and blood creature. I cannot see them as a human construct or as a creation of the human mind set.  If you have read these reports and came different  in mind set, then you have found some thing new. This has been done with out even seeing a creature. I hope that I did not get this wrong.

 

A lot of researchers have been looking for this creature and have gone silent on their encounters. There has to be a reason for this.

[FarArcher]

4 hours ago, dmaker said:

Precisely. Nevermind the fact that reports are non falsifiable in the first place, so any attempt to prove or disprove any one is intellectual at best. Every single bigfoot report could easily be accounted for without the presence of a bigfoot. Whether that be mistaken identity, fabrication, hallucination, etc, does not really matter. We have documented examples of all of those scenarios. The more time that goes by and the more reports pile up, make the non bigfoot explanation more and more likely. 

 

 

I think that's about the sorriest assumption I've ever heard.  

 

So everyone is mistaken, fabricating their narrative, or seeing things not there?

 

Why do folks testify in court?  Obviously, a crime didn't even happen according to your logic, as everything witnessed, observed, heard and experienced was all mistaken identity, fabrication, hallucination, etc.

 

Who's payroll are you on?  

 

You don't believe in these things, yet you live here.  You find nothing acceptable, and go to great lengths to explain your position - we've all heard variations of - hundreds of times.  The only possible reason to hold that position, and yet so enthusiastically reiterate your position - you must be paid by someone.  

 

Why does this site not have an 'ignore?'  Everyone could put this guy on ignore, and he'd have to come up with another hoodoo.

[JustCurious]

Anyone who really wants a taste of what it's like to go through trail cam pics of unfamiliar territory should go to www.zooniverse.org and spend some time searching for elephants!  You'd think they'd be so easy to spot - and sometimes they are - but until you've seen a few shots of the same scene, it can be near impossible to spot them because they blend in so well.  But searching for elephants is kinda fun.

 

Or work on one of the identify the wildlife projects and see how many pics show something, but you can't really be sure what it is.  After going through hundreds of pics, I do know the animals 'see' or 'sense' the cameras because they look right at them.  And even though the projects usually take 3 successive shots, sometimes the camera 'fires' before the subject comes in view and sometimes you're lucky to get one shot before the subject disappears if it's running.  I looked at one animal tonight that was a turkey-bear-pig.  I'm still not sure what I was looking at, but just guessed it was a bear based on the size and shape.  It could have been a bigfoot for all I know. 

 

I'm sure all these reasons and more are how the CCP misses the bigfoot too. 

[Guest DWA]

 

16 hours ago, Starling said:

But I detect here a serious inconsistency on matters of evidence, though. On the one hand you say it's lunacy to assert something as fact for which one can provide no evidence and on the other you say it doesn't do to dismiss evidence. Ant yet my point that the Bigfoot phenomena may be purely psycho-social in nature is something that can absolutely be backed up by a ton of evidence. You don't have to be a PhD in anthropology to read a vast quantity of peer reviewed data relating to folklore and quasi-religious mythologies. These are human constructs and the literature goes back as ling as there has been art and language.

 

I am thinking you are misjudging the nature of the evidence.  The "evidence" for sasquatch as a psychosocial phenomenon is in fact NOT EVIDENCE FOR THAT.  It is evidence that some people go publicly loony in a scientific vacuum, which is pretty much what exists here. And this hasty dredging of studies having zero to do with this, and you are mistaken, inadequate research there, brah, I have read them, is being used to brush aside the consistent experiences of thousands of people - and no, there is NO evidence for anything like this in scientific literature that has not turned out to be pretty much what it appeared to be - and IGNORE FOOTPRINTS, FERCRYINOUTLOUD, FORENSIC EVIDENCE that RECOGNIZED SPECIALISTS are vouching for.  Does.Not.Compute.  The Native Americans, to name of course only one aboriginal culture, have all sorts of folklore and quasi-religious mythologies ...concerning, for the most part, animals confirmed by the scientific community as real. 

 

That is not science, what you are doing there.  That is pulling off-the-shelf dismissals of something one is uncomfortable with, which is, well, anti-science.  Science is not about answers.  It is about QUESTIONS.  EXAMINE THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE (I am truly disheartened by the constant need to put the obvious in all-caps).  When and only when that is done will it be time to talk about quasi-whatever.  Let's cut the anti-science (note, not even quasi-).

 

16 hours ago, Starling said:

 

I've seen you make the claim that there is more evidence for the existence of Bigfoot than any other unproven unknown on the planet. Again, I believe that to be easily refuted as I could list any number of other Cryptids (we in Scotland know a thing or two about unclassified world famous creatures) for efficiency you could make that claim. And, as has already been said, that's before we even get started on the long list of other apparent unexplaineds that now litter our TV channels as cheap entertainments.

 

That just points to inadequate attention to the evidence.  That thing in Scotland  - to name again only one - ain't what people think; it looks like a classic example of "go there expecting to see something and you will."  (I did.  And I didn't.)  Know how I know that?  I have read it, and I have thought about it.  The evidence don't point to no monster, much less plesiosaur, long-necked pinniped, etc. etc. etc.  The sasquatch evidence allows knowledgeable authorities to slot it into a primate family.  It allows me to examine the evidence, then and ONLY then start reading up on the proponents...and find that we have reached the same conclusions!  That ain't no monster.  That's an animal.

 

The evidence is easily read and digested and all publicly available.  But most people cannot be bothered; their understanding and curiosity about the natural world can be poured in a thmble with room for cream, and that includes way too many "scientists."  And as the gentleman once said:  when a man's livelihood depends on his not seeing something it is gonna be awfully hard to get him to see it.  Me?  I know my animals.  ANIMAL.

 

16 hours ago, Starling said:

 

And yet you appear to be content to dismiss all this evidence for a psycho-social explanation out of hand without first properly examining all of it. It's a huge subject and scientifically would encompass many different disciplines. Read the reports, you say, and I have...many of them. But there are other possibilities beyond the giant flesh and blood creature you insist upon. Why not properly explore those possibilities? This seems to be the major contradiction in your scientific approach.

 

No, YOU appear - no, you actually ARE doing - what I outline above.  Why in the hell 'explore' possibilities that my careful examination of consistent eyewitness reportage and FORENSIC EVIDENCE!  (why oh sigh do I keep needing to put the screamingly obvious in all-caps!  Not my problem) clearly shows are hastily cobbled attempts to make people stop asking questions and doing science?  Ain't scientifical there, Mister Scientist.  I'm interested in the utterly cool and exciting expansion of human knowledge, not attempts to hammer a square peg into a round hole to hide it from the prying eyes of scientific curiosity 'coz someone don't like it.  I'm into the QUESTIONS.  But that's the scientist in me, ain't it.

 

16 hours ago, Starling said:

 

Matched against what you describe as a mountain of evidence for existence is a veritable Everest (No, an Olympus Mons) of data that suggests you simply don't need a Sasquatch to account for every single Sasquatch report. Dismissing the social sciences that study human mythology is a mighty big part of the puzzle that you say we are required to look at properly, because we absolutely must not dismiss the evidence. 

 

That one doesn't need a sasquatch to account for every single report...could not be more irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Scotland.  Scotland. SNIGGER.  I take it you haven't found sasquatch tracks.  I have.  And that is what they were, because no other rational explanation exists, and careful that you don't show me you weren't there and couldn't be less qualified to comment.

 

[Guest DWA]

 

 

YOUR challenge, and if not accepted, I am done:  Read Meldrum and Bindernagel, just for starters, and give me an opinion that isn't a dismissal.  I'll know if it's a dismissal. And I'll tell you why and you'll recognize, as you should here, that a scientist is talking to you.

 

You may read the reports.  But lumping this in with Nessie and all the other assorted myths out there just shows you aren't thinking about them.

 

You've read 'many'?  I've read them all.  And applied scientific method.  The reason I didn't read the proponents first was that I know how 'scientists' can get when they're pushing theories.  I didn't want my approach polluted by their findings.  Same findings. If that says nothing to you, I got nuthin', and we just won't have a productive relationship here so might want to save it.

 

Or, maybe, you know, come live in northern CA for a while.  Where I found the tracks.  In one of the most remote spots in one of the most remote spots in the lower 48.  And that is what they were, no hoaxer with the talent and equipment, and such don't exist, would have left these in a spot where the chances of any cause celebre being made of them were effectively zero, and only one animal known or reputed to live in NA could have made them, which it did.

Edited June 5, 2017 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

5 hours ago, JustCurious said:

Anyone who really wants a taste of what it's like to go through trail cam pics of unfamiliar territory should go to www.zooniverse.org and spend some time searching for elephants!  You'd think they'd be so easy to spot - and sometimes they are - but until you've seen a few shots of the same scene, it can be near impossible to spot them because they blend in so well.  But searching for elephants is kinda fun.

 

Or work on one of the identify the wildlife projects and see how many pics show something, but you can't really be sure what it is.  After going through hundreds of pics, I do know the animals 'see' or 'sense' the cameras because they look right at them.  And even though the projects usually take 3 successive shots, sometimes the camera 'fires' before the subject comes in view and sometimes you're lucky to get one shot before the subject disappears if it's running.  I looked at one animal tonight that was a turkey-bear-pig.  I'm still not sure what I was looking at, but just guessed it was a bear based on the size and shape.  It could have been a bigfoot for all I know. 

 

I'm sure all these reasons and more are how the CCP misses the bigfoot too. 

 

Exactly.  Nice post.  What the essential question of this thread is can be put in English as follows:

 

How in the hell could humans - HUMANS! and the majority of them! - be wrong about anything?

 

Easy.  Wrong is our NICHE.  All one needs to do is look at the planet's current straits to see humans are wrong, about most stuff, all of the time.  MOST PARTICULARLY the majority of them.  We just like to deceive ourselves that the minuscule amount we know is a lot.

 

That OP presumes (my GOD thank you, JC, for putting this thread on topic again!) that experts have this all under control, every single image has been reviewed and there are no doubts about any of them.  I spend virtually zero time looking at trailcam photos - and I have seen way more than way more than overkill enough to know that there are lots and LOTS of inconclusive shots that we will never hear tell of.

 

Plus some, count on it, that could drive a conclusion.  If someone, you know, just wanted to...

 

LOOK.

 

(And then there's the footage of the Cross River gorilla silverback rearing on his hind legs and running past, beating his chest, very clearly, at...the camera.)

Edited June 5, 2017 by DWA

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

In one of the most remote spots in one of the most remote spots in the lower 48. 

Yet you, and your wife, were both there. Remoteness is really not that important anyway. People can be mistaken about something, even when they are walking in the woods with their wife. 

 

[WSA]

I'm sorry...one of the funnier things I'm likely to read all the rest of today. So, follow this...the only place on the planet we can call remote is somewhere humans can't reach, which at this stage of our history is where, exactly? I guess only some reaches of the Pacific trench? Too bad it won't also be remote anymore once a submersible reaches it.

 

The problem here is the inability to assess probabilities. Seems to be a terminal case.    

[Guest DWA]

But if you leave bigfoot tracks in a place where no one goes, the tree doesn't make a sound, I have on good authority.

 

What too many fail to understand is what a scientist told me once:  scientific fact is a set of CONDITIONAL truths, backed by evidence.  In other words:  it is not about Bible but about *the way to bet.* The way to bet is that the sun is a star 93 million miles away, and not an Albanian space station 200 miles up.  But you *know* that?  Really?  Let me see your odometer reading after you drive there, please.  You did drive?  I better see video. And don't fake it, I'll see it.

 

(And too many here don't understand that *this is precisely the standard of proof* they are talking about when they talk about bigfoot. We actually have much more direct evidence that bigfoot is real than we have about that star.  People just don't understand how to think about it, is all.)

Edited June 5, 2017 by DWA

[FarArcher]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

Yet you, and your wife, were both there. Remoteness is really not that important anyway. People can be mistaken about something, even when they are walking in the woods with their wife. 

 

 

It sure is to drug mules, Taliban, guerrilla troops, montagnards, and animals that like to avoid humans.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Guest DWA]

haha!  Know how many people reached that spot in the 1980s?  My safe bet:  my wife and me.  I'd lay maybe a dollar side on single-digit others.

 

And he wasn't there.  Now.  Was he.

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

I'm sorry...one of the funnier things I'm likely to read all the rest of today. So, follow this...the only place on the planet we can call remote is somewhere humans can't reach, which at this stage of our history is where, exactly? I guess only some reaches of the Pacific trench? Too bad it won't also be remote anymore once a submersible reaches it.

 

The problem here is the inability to assess probabilities. Seems to be a terminal case.    

How does being remote prevent one from misreading the track?

12 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

It sure is to drug mules, Taliban, guerrilla troops, montagnards, and animals that like to avoid humans.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Remoteness has no bearing on someone's ability to be mistaken was my point.

[FarArcher]

2 minutes ago, dmaker said:

How does being remote prevent one from misreading the track?

Remoteness has no bearing on someone's ability to be mistaken was my point.

 

That's not a point - it's a supposition - a vague stretch.

 

Besides.

 

That's not what you said.

[dmaker]

10 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

That's not what you said.

 

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

Remoteness is really not that important anyway. People can be mistaken about something, even when they are walking in the woods with their wife

That is exactly what I said. It is not a supposition. It is a simple fact. You can look at an impression in the ground in your own garden or in the middle of the wilderness and still be wrong about your interpretation. If you do not understand that, I can't help you with it. 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Regardless all this other crap:  since when was this not about *the way to bet*?  Since when was this not about Occam?

 

People unaware of the evidence don't know:  bigfoot's best friend on the planet is Mr. Occam.  A bigfoot made those tracks I found because there is no other cause, where I was, that could be logically postulated.  And anyone who wasn't there has less to talk about than I do when the subject is Qublicanating your Superfracltilius.

 

And any demurrer you offer is of less value than my take on that awful car you bought three years ago for $5000 and don't tell me what you did, you did that because I KNOW.  Oh.  OK.

Edited June 5, 2017 by DWA