Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[ohiobill]

OS?OS?

 

As your response filing deadline ticks away WSA goes on the offensive and speaks to the media. He suggests that those who know the truth need look no further than the reports which provide all the evidence he needs. He asks for public support and lays out plans for a clothing optional viewing/communing area where those who know the truth can communicate with the creatures once the lawsuit is won. He looks straight into the camera lens and promises to keep adding more reports as they become available and implores the viewers to forward him reports to help him silence the scoftics and protect these majestic creatures once and for all!

 

Even though you're positive the creatures can't be living on your property Is there any possible way to win this lawsuit OS? Are there any experts who could examine the property for evidence of habitation and testify on your behalf? What about those mythical scientists of which DWA speaks so disparagingly? Could they possibly be of any help? Does science have anything to counter DWA's sighting and the pile of reports? 

 

What will you do OS? Will you walk away from your home because of sighting reports or will you fight this hypothetical lawsuit? 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Even if there were actual endangered species living on a property, the claim might not hold up in court if the size of the property is small enough. A better case would be if the lawsuit were against lumber manufacturers, but even then it's going to be a matter of convincing the judge, and anecdotes on their own probably won't do it, even though in theory they can work fine if evaluated effectively enough. 

 

What denialists don't seem to be consciously aware of is that when they keep dismissing every seemingly small bit of evidence, they eventually end up missing the big picture that others with broader view are able to see an understand. We're dealing with a highly complex phenomenon, in which there's a lot of different factors involved in making it what it is today. To be able to understand or solve it well enough, one has to hold many ideas simultaneously and understand the interrelationships. 

[Guest Starling]

1 hour ago, OntarioSquatch said:

 

 

What denialists don't seem to be consciously aware of is that when they keep dismissing every seemingly small bit of evidence, they eventually end up missing the big picture that others with broader view are able to see an understand.

 

But the quality of the data is of tantamount importance when assessing an accurate idea of what that big picture actually looks like. If the nature of evidence is continually ambiguous, untestable and much of it is based on hearsay then it becomes irrelevant how much of it you gather, you might as well be stamp collecting. Something more concrete is required or the possibilities will always point in more than one direction. The notion that in this case they can only point towards existence is simply incorrect. 

[dmaker]

Is it complex because the aliens created bigfoot?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

13 hours ago, Starling said:

 

But the quality of the data is of tantamount importance when assessing an accurate idea of what that big picture actually looks like. 

 

Yes, and that's why it's necessary to the determine the accuracy of observations first before using them to support any theory.

 

To most individuals within the scientific community, alleged observations that aren't replicable aren't of any analytic value, as their accuracy is undetermined. Logically though, one can determine their accuracy through various psychoanalytical methods. Scientists in general though, won't validate observations this way due to the controversial nature of it, and that's partly because of how challanging it is.

 

Observation: Some claiming to have seen X

 

If you can determine the truthfulness of the alleged observer with a high enough degree of accuracy, you can then safely use

 

Observation: Someone seeing X

 

as data that is deemed valid. The important thing to note is that psychoanalysis is a working method for determining truthfulness.

 

An interesting thing is that dmaker along with other ISF members constantly use it themselves to determine the truthfulness of alleged witnesses here on the forum, yet won't acknowledge that it works when I (a proponent) mention it.

[SWWASAS]

How did you know that?    That is classified information.   Expect the black suburbans to arrive any minute. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by SWWASAS

[norseman]

41 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

 

Yes, and that's why it's necessary to the determine the accuracy of observations first before using them to support any theory.

 

To most individuals within the scientific community, alleged observations that aren't replicable aren't of any analytic value, as their accuracy is undetermined. Logically though, one can determine their accuracy through various psychoanalytical methods. Scientists in general though, won't validate observations this way due to the controversial nature of it, and that's partly because of how challanging it is.

 

Observation: Some claiming to have seen X

 

If you can determine the truthfulness of the alleged observer with a high enough degree of accuracy, you can then safely use

 

Observation: Someone seeing X

 

as data that is deemed valid. The important thing to note is that psychoanalysis is a working method for determining truthfulness.

 

An interesting thing is that dmaker along with other ISF members constantly use it themselves to determine the truthfulness of alleged witnesses here on the forum, yet won't acknowledge that it works when I (a proponent) mention it.

 

Your talking some thing like this at 12:33.

 

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to describe, and a great thing about it is that it can work effectively on both written, and physical types of communication.

 

Even if one doesn't use that particular method of analysis, one can use reports in other ways to determine whether or not they correspond to real phenomena. If it's a highly intelligent mammal, then there should be consistencies in unique behaviour (both mental and physical) over a very large number of reports, and in reality that does in fact exist with Sasquatch in various ways. In other words, it can be said that based on that, people are in fact experiencing much of what's being described, and not everyone is making it up.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by OntarioSquatch

[ohiobill]

18 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Even if there were actual endangered species living on a property, the claim might not hold up in court if the size of the property is small enough. A better case would be if the lawsuit were against lumber manufacturers, but even then it's going to be a matter of convincing the judge, and anecdotes on their own probably won't do it, even though in theory they can work fine if evaluated effectively enough. 

 

What denialists don't seem to be consciously aware of is that when they keep dismissing every seemingly small bit of evidence, they eventually end up missing the big picture that others with broader view are able to see an understand. We're dealing with a highly complex phenomenon, in which there's a lot of different factors involved in making it what it is today. To be able to understand or solve it well enough, one has to hold many ideas simultaneously and understand the interrelationships. 

OS - I'm confident that any such claim, without solid physical evidence, would not hold up in court and I'm equally sure you know it as well. In fact, I think that's why you've refused to actually answer the questions asked of you. I personally believe that it would be downright embarrassing for our hypothetical plaintiffs, worse even than DWA's April Fools day boondoggle.

 

There are some items I agree with in your response. The property size could easily be a factor brought up in such a case or examination. For example, the NAWAC's continued inability to find any evidence on a small 10 acre plot after 15+ years despite the plethora of claims they've made should have everyone questioning their integrity if not their sanity in my opinion. I can also see the ownership of the property coming into it as well. Let's again use NAWAC for our real-life example as they lease the hunting cabin site from Charles Branson, a "forest people" proponent. Their anecdotal reports are quite different, Branson claims interaction with gentle "forest people" and NAWAC is throwing lead downrange at scary woodapes. How can such conflicting reports be used as anything more than a starting point for an investigation? In fact, to me, both sets of stories are completely unreliable without some sort of compelling physical evidence. 

 

If/when proponents are ready to examine the subject seriously, they will need to treat it seriously to be taken seriously. Irregardless of how many different ideas they may hold on the subject they will have to provide physical evidence. No amount of interrelated reports or stories will ever suffice. 

[hiflier]

9 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

For example, the NAWAC's continued inability to find any evidence on a small 10 acre plot after 15+ years despite the plethora of claims they've made should have everyone questioning their integrity if not their sanity in my opinion. I can also see the ownership of the property coming into it as well. Let's again use NAWAC for our real-life example as they lease the hunting cabin site from Charles Branson, a "forest people" proponent

 

The NAWAC hasn't been on the Branson property for quite a while now- for at least two years perhaps.

Edited June 11, 2017 by hiflier

[ohiobill]

Thanks hiflier, now that you mention it I do remember hearing rumors that they may have gotten kicked off the property. Can you point me to any relevant threads? 

[norseman]

29 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to describe, and a great thing about it is that it can work effectively on both written, and physical types of communication.

 

Even if one doesn't use that particular method of analysis, one can use reports in other ways to determine whether or not they correspond to real phenomena. If it's a highly intelligent mammal, then there should be consistencies in unique behaviour (both mental and physical) over a very large number of reports, and in reality that does in fact exist with Sasquatch in various ways. In other words, it can be said that based on that, people are in fact experiencing much of what's being described, and not everyone is making it up.

 

 

 

And that's all fine and well. Those men are telling the truth from the standpoint of a expert micro expressionist. Great.

 

But if we are dealing with a creature that breeds, bleeds and defecates and makes its living in the forests of North America? At some point we must start asking ourselves why we cannot come up with any physical evidence!?

 

Add to all of this a community that by and large doesn't care if a type specimen is found, which would vindicate every witness who ever made a report? Very frustrating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

OS - I'm confident that any such claim, without solid physical evidence, would not hold up in court and I'm equally sure you know it as well. In fact, I think that's why you've refused to actually answer the questions asked of you. I personally believe that it would be downright embarrassing for our hypothetical plaintiffs, worse even than DWA's April Fools day boondoggle.

 

There are some items I agree with in your response. The property size could easily be a factor brought up in such a case or examination. For example, the NAWAC's continued inability to find any evidence on a small 10 acre plot after 15+ years despite the plethora of claims they've made should have everyone questioning their integrity if not their sanity in my opinion. I can also see the ownership of the property coming into it as well. Let's again use NAWAC for our real-life example as they lease the hunting cabin site from Charles Branson, a "forest people" proponent. Their anecdotal reports are quite different, Branson claims interaction with gentle "forest people" and NAWAC is throwing lead downrange at scary woodapes. How can such conflicting reports be used as anything more than a starting point for an investigation? In fact, to me, both sets of stories are completely unreliable without some sort of compelling physical evidence. 

 

If/when proponents are ready to examine the subject seriously, they will need to treat it seriously to be taken seriously. Irregardless of how many different ideas they may hold on the subject they will have to provide physical evidence. No amount of interrelated reports or stories will ever suffice. 

 

Plussed.

 

I will just add that it's not just the NAWAC that's having a problem backing up their claims. It's all of us.

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, norseman said:

Add to all of this a community that by and large doesn't care if a type specimen is found, which would vindicate every witness who ever made a report? Very frustrating

 

^ ^ Agreed, and well said.

 

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

I will just add that it's not just the NAWAC that's having a problem backing up their claims. It's all of us

 

You're two for two here.

[dmaker]

OS, according to your alien theory. When, exactly, did the aliens create bigfoot?

[ohiobill]

Thanks Norse! I agree that NAWAC is not the only entity guilty of failure here, they just happened to be the first group I thought of that directly rebutted OS's post.

 

Why do you think so many continue to fail in grasping such a simple concept - that stories and reports aren't evidence of existence and will never be accepted as such? That's what I can't understand about the whole situation. I can understand, even sympathize, with someone who puts their time, effort and money into a search for a cryptid without success. But I refuse to believe that anyone serious about such a search wouldn't have the most basic understanding of the scientific method and understand why it's so important.