Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[Guest Crowlogic]

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.

Agreed that the breath and width of possible habitation areas has grown wildly improbable as time goes on.  Human beings are not 100% unreliable but some things humans put out to other humans are 100% unreliable 100% of the time.  Each and every Elvis sighting since 1977 is 100% wrong.  Folks imagine they see Elvis, there are Elvis impersonators and there are people who may look like Elvis in the right circumstance.  But Nobody will ever see the Elvis Presley that died in 1977. Why would someone claim to see Elvis, what good does it do them, what can they expect to get out of it?  Honestly I'm more likely to believe Todd Standing saw bigfoot than I am of someone having an Elvis spotting. 

[Guest DWA]

No.  It hasn't.  First sentence answered; not sure what is even going on in the rest.  But first sentence, definitively answered.

[guyzonthropus]

But you seem to approach this with the notion they are assuredly creatures of animalistic mentality and awareness, both of self and of us, and this, along with a great deal of conjecture concerning the nature of these guys, is an erroneous perspective, for were it truely so, we would have any number of specimens by now. In that we dont, at least known to the public, this indicates that our interpretation of the various data is faulty, and we need to shift the working model to accomodate the observed traits and noted patterns within reports and such.

Kinda like the retrograde motion of mars in the geocentric model of the solar system, it had to be that way in order to keep the explination of it all in line with the church's position, lest they be found misinformed, thereby drawing the whole system into question thanks to that little infalibility clause.....held back progression and further understanding quite considerably, and a similar pattern seems to be in play with the issue of sasquatch as well...

Edited June 9, 2015 by guyzonthropus

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

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.

 

 It's a waste of time and resources to go through a MI treatment protocol if the patient's chief complaint (AKA assertion) is "Doc, I stubbed my toe and I think it's broken". That is why a good, competent physician takes the patient's assertions (AKA "chief complaint" and "history of the presenting illness") into consideration before initiating a slew of tests. In short, the patient's assertion is "evidence". Additionally, a good, competent, knowledgeable physician knows that things other than an MI can cause an inverted T wave. And that's why it would be a waste of time to activate MI protocols in person with no complaints of chest pain or no known cardiac disease gets a screening EKG, which shows an inverted T wave. It could be a primary T wave inversion, which is usually a normal benign variant. It could be a pre-excitation disorder or a ventricular conduction disorder.

 

 BTW, I have a persistent juvenile T-wave inversion which is a benign condition and was found when I was 22 years old on a screening EKG. So if any doctor tried to initiate an MI protocol on me based wholly on my EKG, I'd walk out of their office because that doctor is a quack.

 

So if Big Foot researchers have to follow the same standards as physicians, then BF researchers have to take witness statements, their own observations and tests into consideration in order to formulate an "evidence-based" conclusion.

Edited June 9, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest DWA]

Well, CR, don't know what you do for a living, although it sounds somewyhat field related (or personal experience related), but you'd be a better doctor than one that commenced treatment without listening to me.

Without the observations of laymen, most of the major wildlife discoveries of modern Western science simply don't happen.  Gorilla, no.  Giant Panda, no.  Pere David's deer, no.  Kouprey, no.  Saola, no.  Chacoan peccary, no.  Giant peccary, no.  Etc.

What is being shown here is what bigfoot skeptics are relying on when they rely on the scientists who agree with them.  Who are, when it comes to just this now, flat quacks.

[Guest Crowlogic]

But you seem to approach this with the notion they are assuredly creatures of animalistic mentality and awareness, both of self and of us, and this, along with a great deal of conjecture concerning the nature of these guys, is an erroneous perspective, for were it truely so, we would have any number of specimens by now. In that we dont, at least known to the public, this indicates that our interpretation of the various data is faulty, and we need to shift the working model to accomodate the observed traits and noted patterns within reports and such.

Kinda like the retrograde motion of mars in the geocentric model of the solar system, it had to be that way in order to keep the explination of it all in line with the church's position, lest they be found misinformed, thereby drawing the whole system into question thanks to that little infalibility clause.....held back progression and further understanding quite considerably, and a similar pattern seems to be in play with the issue of sasquatch as well...

Meldrum pegs the beast as being about as smart as chimps.

[guyzonthropus]

Yet they continue to elude us and thwart efforts to capture,kill, or even photograph effectively one of their kind, while the chimp is part of mainstream awareness, having filled roles of zoo exibit, museum piece, lab animal, even co-star with a president during his hollywood days. No, i would figure on the sasquatch being a more clever monkey than Meldrum chooses to state at this point. Their talent for evasion alone indicates that there is more to the story.

[Guest DWA]

Meldrum pegs the beast as being about as smart as chimps.

 

Which is probably correct.  People are speculating all kinds of things that really don't need to be speculated.

 

Too many are saying "we are so omniscient omnipresent and Overall Cool that to avoid us it would have to be..."  The evidence shows, very clearly, that this animal is  making not that much more an effort to avoid us than any other; we're just in denial that something like this could be real.  It's our dunderheadedness that is the diffuculty here.

 

That may be the most amusing thing about the fringes of this discussion to me:  all  the "mere apes" and "they are sooooooooo advanced they must be human" and "we are the apex of evolution" when something is practically sticking its smelly butt in our faces ...and most of us deny it's real.

Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

They issues with your approach to this continue to be confirmed Crowlogic. BF is not Elvis, a car or any number of other fallacious comparisons. The person who fails to have tools to reasonably discern who is probably reliable, or not, is hosed in this life. Period.  Get a pile started on this or the other, or you will wander aimlessly. So far, you've yawed all over the pond.  You must like it is the only conclusion I can make. 

Bill...although DWA and I have similar views, you fail to appreciate the differences. He is doing education. While he stands at the blackboard, I'm the kid slouched in the back row, snickering into the neck of my t-shirt at the kid in the front row waving his hand in the air and asking the same absurd question over, and over, and over...

 

It is a lot of fun. I have to admit the guilty pleasure of it.

[Guest DWA]

Funny you should mention that.

 

"Learning how to think" really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think.  it means being conscious and aware enough to choose how you construct meaning from experience.  Because if you cannot or will not exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed...David Foster Wallace

 

He even says "hosed."  Been readin' up, boy?  'Fess up.

 

DFW didn't do amateur squatchin'.  But he has got right what the scientist flat has to do.  The scientist doesn't wait for proof.  He takes your unicorn sighting and asks himself:  of competing priorities, where does this fit?

 

I don't think he's making a stop at Lindisfarne Castle first.  But when other scientists are writing books about something...he will make sure he's cracked them before pronouncing sentence.

 

The rest of us?  We're just accumulating information.  Proof schmoof.  We've got enough to know where this should be...and it ain't here.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Well, CR, don't know what you do for a living, although it sounds somewyhat field related (or personal experience related), but you'd be a better doctor than one that commenced treatment without listening to me.

Without the observations of laymen, most of the major wildlife discoveries of modern Western science simply don't happen.  Gorilla, no.  Giant Panda, no.  Pere David's deer, no.  Kouprey, no.  Saola, no.  Chacoan peccary, no.  Giant peccary, no.  Etc.

What is being shown here is what bigfoot skeptics are relying on when they rely on the scientists who agree with them.  Who are, when it comes to just this now, flat quacks.

 

They miss the point that what is observed is 'evidence" and that  observation is the heart of science.  Newton observed an apple fall and later physicists quantified that rate. Fleming observed that bacteria wouldn't grow where a mold was and later isolated that mold. Jenner observed milk maids didn't acquire smallpox if they got cowpox first.

 

I can't think of a single scientific experiment or study that disregards observation by the person(s) doing the experiment or study.

[Guest DWA]

And then it comes down to the degree.  Or, um, you know, knowing where the coffee shop is, or having worked on this model engine before.

 

Humans are where they are in the natural world because of - only because of - the power of eyewitness testimony.  (Tools ain't workin' if only M'ogg can make one.)  Anyone not getting this needs to tear down how they think, and start all over, to make any sense of anything he hasn't seen before.

 

Or, in the alternative, just admit that the mainstream is doin' it wrong when it comes to this subject.

Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Underlying all I write here is the creeping fear of the kind of minds we are (not)creating and nurturing.  Discernment is a learned skill that requires tons of practice and applied experience. If you don't have the practical experience, and you want to figure stuff out, go seek it. Instead,  I see lots of evidence of people who can't make those kinds of calls (For fear of what? Being wrong? Appearing foolish? Garden-variety laziness? What?) and just throw in the towel and declare, "It's impossible to know or even to draw reasonable inferences." Well, demonstrably, it isn't. Moreover, as our buddy DFW confirms, it is even required. That there is a percentage of adults who operate this way is not surprising to me. That they continually show up here to practice their know-nothingness is really quite astounding.    

Edited June 9, 2015 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

There are many very outre mindsets among our species that I just flat get.  I understand them.

 

Bigfoot skepticism, I don't, and I never will.  It simply requires too little of one for me to accept anyone settling for that.

[Guest insanity42]

Meldrum pegs the beast as being about as smart as chimps.

Which is probably correct.  People are speculating all kinds of things that really don't need to be speculated.

 

Too many are saying "we are so omniscient omnipresent and Overall Cool that to avoid us it would have to be..."  The evidence shows, very clearly, that this animal is  making not that much more an effort to avoid us than any other; we're just in denial that something like this could be real.  It's our dunderheadedness that is the diffuculty here.

 

That may be the most amusing thing about the fringes of this discussion to me:  all  the "mere apes" and "they are sooooooooo advanced they must be human" and "we are the apex of evolution" when something is practically sticking its smelly butt in our faces ...and most of us deny it's real.

 

I have speculated on an intelligence on par with a gorilla (which do have a little more brain neurons than a chimpanzee) to perhaps on limited to Australopithecus afarensis or Homo habilis.  It really comes to the daily calorie intake to support a combination of body mass and number of brain neurons.