Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[Guest DWA]

Long story there Bill. What the punchline is, is that clinical science without a hefty dose of experience to back it up is largely techno-wanking. I see a lot of that around here.

Pretty much.

 

A lot of the leaning on scientists here is leaning on a Hollywood prop that doesn't have one of those prop thingies holding it up.  I'll leave it to WSA to pronounce on composition, tensile strength, workmanship, grain, etc.  But I don't know a "scientist" with a negative opinion on this who has put one line out there that didn't come from his [pertoober] unleavened by experience, thought, application of degree(s) or anything else one would expect to back something one relies upon.  I am still waiting for the first such, and suspect I will be until the animal is confirmed.

Edited June 8, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Sorry Bill, believe we lost the thread here....probably my fault.

[ohiobill]

I think we all got the punchline to the tired old joke you two keep telling – when it matters both you and WSA will run straight to a scientist if you want an actual answer. We can disregard all the pages you have wasted bandwidth on crowing about how much more you know than all the scientists who have looked at what's available. The truth is plain that science is where you turn when you need an answer. You actually do believe in testing and the scientific method where it concerns your interests. You two really got us good! 

 

What are the scientists saying about it? Never saw a scientist who’s looked into and not come out professing sassy’s real? Your eyes are getting worse than WSA’s dictionary – all you have to do is look at my sig line for a quote from Dr. Todd Disotell about the subject. He’s read the stories, looked at the crappy pics and even tested the NOT-sassy samples sent in to his lab. You’d have to have a seat on Sasfooty’s porch to be closer to the action – he even takes mobile labs out into the field to test fresh samples from researchers.

 

Not enough? I don’t know if you’ve heard of Dr. Jeff Meldrum but he will flat out tell you that he doesn’t think sassy is proven to exist. Start at 4:00 if you want to save some time. WARNING!!! NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART - If you watch the whole thing you will even hear Dr.Meldrum suggest disregarding rumor and speculation and to focus on evidence. 

 

 

WSA - No worries, you don't need to rely on me being around. You know how to find a scientist for answers if you ever get serious about sassy. 

[Guest DWA]

I think we all got the punchline to the tired old joke you two keep telling

 

(Mental note:  discuss with OB how this shows how little he's paying attention.)

 

– when it matters both you and WSA will run straight to a scientist if you want an actual answer.

 

(Mental note:  remind OB that "science" is something scientists DO, and we go to scientists *actually doing science* when we want answers.)

 

We can disregard all the pages you have wasted bandwidth on

 

(Mental note:  discuss with OB how saying the same thing over and over and firmly declining all invitations to get read up or show the science backing one's empty assumptions is not wasting bandwidth oh but it IS.)

 

crowing about how much more you know than all the scientists who have looked at what's available.

 

(Mental note:  ask OB why he thinks the scientists backing him have looked at what's available, particularly as he cannot show anything they have done which indicates this.)

(Mental note:  ask OB why he doesn't read Meldrum and Bindernagel to see what we expect of scientists.)

 

 

The truth is plain that science is where you turn when you need an answer.

 

(Mental note:  ask OB whether he's gotten that distinction between "science" and people who call themselves "scientists" but are not showing a working acquaintance with "science" when it comes to, you know, this.)

 

 

You actually do believe in testing and the scientific method where it concerns your interests. You two really got us good!  

 

(Mental note:  tell OB we believe in nothing.  We just note who is doing science...and who is not.)

(Mental note:  OB is wasting bandwidth.  But tackling dummies are expected to do this.  Wasting bandwidth has its uses.)

 

What are the scientists saying about it? Never saw a scientist who’s looked into and not come out professing sassy’s real? Your eyes are getting worse than WSA’s dictionary – all you have to do is look at my sig line for a quote from Dr. Todd Disotell about the subject.

 

(Mental note:  challenge OB to come up with one thing Disotell has said about this that isn't the kind of thing one could get at any cocktail party, from anyone there selected at random.)

 

 

He’s read the stories, looked at the crappy pics and even tested the NOT-sassy samples sent in to his lab. You’d have to have a seat on Sasfooty’s porch to be closer to the action – he even takes mobile labs out into the field to test fresh samples from researchers.

 

(Mental note:  ask OB why he doesn't seem to get that testing samples, although cool, means nothing except that this sample isn't this.)

 

Not enough? I don’t know if you’ve heard of Dr. Jeff Meldrum but he will flat out tell you that he doesn’t think sassy is proven to exist. Start at 4:00 if you want to save some time. WARNING!!! NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART - If you watch the whole thing you will even hear Dr.Meldrum suggest disregarding rumor and speculation and to focus on evidence. 

 

(Mental note:  ask OB why he thinks the red part isn't directed at people like him.)

(Mental note:  ask OB whether he knows what "evidence" is.  Naaaaaah, we know that one.)

 

[Guest DWA]

Now.  Could you please figure out how to figure out?  It has helped the two of us immeasurably.  I'd try it.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

WSA - Did your cardiologist base his treatment decisions on your assertion, based on your experience alone, that you had an inverted T wave? Or did he use evidence like an EKG, an electrolyte panel, Troponin levels, echo or stress test? If he didn't perform any of those tests you might want to look for another cardiologist. There is a difference between your assertions and evidence.

Actually ideas without evidence are called hypotheses.

 

Conclusions without evidence are guesses.

 

 

A competent doctor uses a patient's assertion (ex. "Doc, I have a pain in my chest.") as the basis for diagnosis and treatment.  Laboratory and other tests merely confirm the diagnosis the competent doctor made based on a thorough history and physical examination of the patient.

[Guest DWA]

I'd recommend to anyone that if his assertions do not carry imperative weight with his doctors he needs new doctors, as they say, stat.

 

"Conclusions without evidence are guesses."

 

Well, note to bigfoot skeptics.  Do tell!  I was wondering how many times I would have to say that, how many different ways, before one got it!  Bigfoot skepticism is one huge guess, unencumbered by evidence (or any understanding what that might be).

Edited June 8, 2015 by DWA

[ohiobill]

There is a detailed protocol cardiologists follow, it involves tests no matter what is learned from the presentation and history. The EKG told the Dr. that WSA had an inverted T wave, he didn't guess.

[Guest DWA]

Yep, that is science in general.  Reading Meldrum and Bindernagel leaves one crystal clear how the best ones do it.

[ohiobill]

I can see Dr. Meldrum actually doing it in the video I linked above. I can watch and hear him actually say "I would never say 100% because I acknowledge, first and foremost, that a type specimen is required" when asked if sassy is 100% proven.  

[Guest DWA]

Well, what does he think his mainstream buddies *expect* him to say?  He's trying to *sell* this to them.  He doesn't want them to either (a) feel like idiots or ( *** react to the truth hurting.  I'm not worried about selling anything to anybody.  I just like to point out that what Meldrum is really saying is:

 

I acknowledge, first and foremost, that the ranks of alleged scientists being full of people unable to dig themselves out of the grooves of canon with an army of backhoes, we're gonna have to kill one, because educating some people is just never gonna happen.

 

 

***Left in to demonstrate what typing [parenthesis/b/parenthesis] does around here  (  (    ...<<<that's with both cases

Edited June 8, 2015 by DWA

[ohiobill]

Maybe all the recent hoaxes and the inability of groups like NAWAC to produce any evidence despite claimed repeated close contact has caused him to be more cautious? 

 

My take from the video is that -

Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense is Dr. Meldrum approved at this point in time.

[Guest DWA]

But no one has *ever* asserted that Bigfoot is Nearly Everywhere.  No one I took seriously.  Putting the wildest pseudo-proponent premises up there as the heart of the proponent argument is about as dishonest as the discussion gets.

 

NAWAC is a treasure trove of evidence...to folks who know them, and know evidence.  What's happening with them is garden-variety new-species confirmation...oh, wait a minute....garden-variety new-species confirmation by people using their vacation time and personal funds, there.

[WSA]

Guess I should weigh in on the OP premise, for what little worth it might have...

 

1. "Nearly" everywhere?  As in, "Could be some places and not some others?"   No arguments there. But is it everywhere everyone claims it to be? It would be absurd to say that is probable. Equally absurd is the idea that humans are 100% unreliable. Now go figure out which one is which, on a case by case basis. Here's my pile. Got yours? If not, why not? You waiting on something?

 

2. I am not going to offer any opinion on what FNP thought BF was, or is. They, all being individuals, have differing opinions, I'm sure. I would not be at all surprised if the Indian you asked doesn't resist the urge to ask you back, "So, tell me what the "White Europeans" think Bruce Jenner is?"  If the original poster is an Indian...even better to make this point.

[Guest Crowlogic]

But no one has *ever* asserted that Bigfoot is Nearly Everywhere.  No one I took seriously.  Putting the wildest pseudo-proponent premises up there as the heart of the proponent argument is about as dishonest as the discussion gets.

 

NAWAC is a treasure trove of evidence...to folks who know them, and know evidence.  What's happening with them is garden-variety new-species confirmation...oh, wait a minute....garden-variety new-species confirmation by people using their vacation time and personal funds, there.

Not taking the idea of almost everywhere seriously is an excellent position.  I've a cohort who is in the proponent camp and had bought the idea that bigfoot is in the Pinelands of NJ .  I know the pinelands I've been through them and in them almost countless times.  I understood their size and their proximity to civilization on a very intimate level.  Their reputation of remoteness and bigness is overstated.  They are big and you can feel alone in the middle but pick any direction and start walking and you'll be in civilization in a day and a half at the very most.  Also they are not true wilderness they've been inhabited since the 18th century and there are still business operations that go on in them.  So certain places look good on first blush but fail in the all things considered.  It was the original claims of bigfoot  being in remote areas that gave the whole thing legs in the first place.