A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Bodhi]

Bodhi, let me clear that one up for you: You stop looking when the evidence stops.

 

If anything about that is not clear, get back to me.   Thanks.

After how many years may without a holotype may one ask the question "When" without being attacked?

[Guest DWA]

Why is one even asking such a question?  If the effort being expended right now is being expended for the next 100 years...expect nothing.

 

Cleared up?

It is the titanic curiosity lack that those of us in the know cannot get over.

[Bonehead74]

Does it seem a bit strange that religion cannot be referenced but we have believers as well as skeptics who seem to have made a religion of BF with apposing views? Belief systems are not exclusive property of religion.

 

Good point, SWWA. What I find strange is that one can seemingly reference religion in the general forum with impunity as long as it is done in a derogatory fashion. I've seen it many times over the years:

Personally, I think organized religions had a big hand in initially driving another hominid into secrecy. Perhaps their stranglehold is loosening it's grip.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Bonehead74

[Bodhi]

Why is one even asking such a question?  If the effort being expended right now is being expended for the next 100 years...expect nothing.

 

Cleared up?

It is the titanic curiosity lack that those of us in the know cannot get over.

The question(s) were directed to a specific member (WSA), your posts will continue to be ignored as counter-productive personal attacks. Feel free to do as you wish, but understand your posts will generally not be seen nor replied to.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest DWA]

^^^Best piece of news I have gotten today.

 

[b-man doesn't know he's basically a rhetorical punching bag; I am not talking to him]

This, kidz, is how you know you are talking to someone who isn't serious about this.  Note the "your posts will continue to be ignored..."  Does a person like this think i care what he thinks, as his knowledge level has been clearly telegraphed to me?  I do not.  People trying to Win The Argument, rather than get educated, do not possess the proper level of seriousness.  They think that what they say means something; it does not.

 

Remember, kidz:  people need to address the evidence.  They need to show why they should be taken seriously.  B-man does not; so he should not.

[WSA]

Bodhi, you ask a question that science never asks. If you presume to approach this scientifically, you might want to consider that. Of course, if it is not something worthy enough for you to think of it in those terms, I got nothin'. 

 

Science looks until science either arrives at an answer or the evidence trail ends. The evidence trail has not ended, and if anything, it keeps coming at a greater clip...something the "I-want-proof-and-I-want-it-now" faction seem to not notice or have an interest about.  

 

Scientific inquiries have no use-by date attached. They don't go "stale." The don't fall out of consideration because somebody, "would have expected an answer by now." It don't care for your stinkin' petulance and impatience or your feelings of betrayal. It has no use for any of that. All it ever asks is, "Has the evidence been explained?" As everyone here should know, it hasn't. Some of it has, and that is good to know. Now we need to address the 99% of it that hasn't been. No matter how much somebody might wish that some hoaxes or tall tales explain all of the BF evidence, the honest people here know it doesn't even come close.  

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.  Against which, B-man got nut-tin'.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Why is one even asking such a question?  If the effort being expended right now is being expended for the next 100 years...expect nothing.

 

Cleared up?

It is the titanic curiosity lack that those of us in the know cannot get over.

Nonsense.  There are hundreds of boots on the ground both looking for bigfoot and being in a reliable place to find bigfoot.  It is easy to dismiss that there is an entire forestry industry that employees scientists and workers.  Of course the bigfoot contingent conveniently explains this away with assorted conspiracy theories.  We already have all the proof we need with the habituation community, those  folks are on a first name basis with the beast.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Nor does, you know, this guy, who gets it wrong in his first sentence and just compounds it with every word thereafter.  As is his wont.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Bodhi, you ask a question that science never asks. If you presume to approach this scientifically, you might want to consider that. Of course, if it is not something worthy enough for you to think of it in those terms, I got nothin'. 

 

Science looks until science either arrives at an answer or the evidence trail ends. The evidence trail has not ended, and if anything, it keeps coming at a greater clip...something the "I-want-proof-and-I-want-it-now" faction seem to not notice or have an interest about.  

 

Scientific inquiries have no use-by date attached. They don't go "stale." The don't fall out of consideration because somebody, "would have expected an answer by now." It don't care for your stinkin' petulance and impatience or your feelings of betrayal. It has no use for any of that. All it ever asks is, "Has the evidence been explained?" As everyone here should know, it hasn't. Some of it has, and that is good to know. Now we need to address the 99% of it that hasn't been. No matter how much somebody might wish that some hoaxes or tall tales explain all of the BF evidence, the honest people here know it doesn't even come close.  

The so called trail of evidence is not a trail at all.  A trail leads from a starting point to an ending point.   In the case of bigfoot the evidence trail is an evidence loop that is predictable in it's cycles but not indicative of moving the issue to a conclusion.

[Bodhi]

Bodhi, you ask a question that science never asks. If you presume to approach this scientifically, you might want to consider that. Of course, if it is not something worthy enough for you to think of it in those terms, I got nothin'. 

 

Science looks until science either arrives at an answer or the evidence trail ends. The evidence trail has not ended, and if anything, it keeps coming at a greater clip...something the "I-want-proof-and-I-want-it-now" faction seem to not notice or have an interest about.  

 

Scientific inquiries have no use-by date attached. They don't go "stale." The don't fall out of consideration because somebody, "would have expected an answer by now." It don't care for your stinkin' petulance and impatience or your feelings of betrayal. It has no use for any of that. All it ever asks is, "Has the evidence been explained?" As everyone here should know, it hasn't. Some of it has, and that is good to know. Now we need to address the 99% of it that hasn't been. No matter how much somebody might wish that some hoaxes or tall tales explain all of the BF evidence, the honest people here know it doesn't even come close.  

I beg to differ. If science looks at, say a possible undiscovered species, and finds no evidence of said species; science moves on to other questions. Hence, the dearth of phd's looking into sasquatch. There are a few outlyers but by and large the topic is ignored by science because scientists see no reason to examine the idea any longer.

The same with all of the sciences, cold-fusion being another case in point. There was claim of breakthrough, science looked at and determined that the claim was unfounded and moved on. Again, there are a few outlyers continuing on but science writ large has moved on.

 

Heck, SETI lost government funding and it was only through extraordinarily deep pockets that it was able to carry on.

 

So I do not grant your premise that science is an infinite loop of inquiry regardless of previous results.

[Guest DWA]

But more should be said, and now that Crow and B-man ain't bothering me, let's help you budding scientists out there.

 

Bodhi, you ask a question that science never asks. If you presume to approach this scientifically, you might want to consider that. 

 

Knowing that bigfoot skeptics have no interest in science - just in what people who call themselves scientists, who agree with them, think-without-thinking - we know they are not interested in approaching this scientifically.  They are interested in Winning The Argument, just as their 'scientists' are interested in Playing To the Peanut Gallery, and Looking Like Experts.  All these approaches, kidz, are anathema to good scientific practice.

 

Science looks until science either arrives at an answer or the evidence trail ends. The evidence trail has not ended, and if anything, it keeps coming at a greater clip...something the "I-want-proof-and-I-want-it-now" faction seem to not notice or have an interest about.  

 

Here, kidz, is where paying attention comes in.  The evidence is rocketing in, an unprecedented deluge.  But bigfoot skeptics can't be bothered because this involves too much of something they cannot handle:  entertaining the notion that the universe is not static, and might not agree with them.   They simply say Internet = Copycats,  because, nicely tied up!  Those in the know, know that it's really:  Internet = People Knowing Where To Report Now.

 

Scientific inquiries have no use-by date attached. They don't go "stale." The don't fall out of consideration because somebody, "would have expected an answer by now." It don't care for your stinkin' petulance and impatience or your feelings of betrayal. It has no use for any of that. All it ever asks is, "Has the evidence been explained?" As everyone here should know, it hasn't. Some of it has, and that is good to know. Now we need to address the 99% of it that hasn't been. No matter how much somebody might wish that some hoaxes or tall tales explain all of the BF evidence, the honest people here know it doesn't even come close.  

 

Witness geometrical spectra (Google it, b-skeptics, I'm done spoonfeeding), which was discovered...and then un-discovered for a hundred years.  No expiration date.  So yeah B-man, I am personally attacking you...with FACTS.  If that's a personal attack don't we have you sussed.  

I beg to differ. If science looks at, say a possible undiscovered species, and finds no evidence of said species; science moves on to other questions. Hence, the dearth of phd's looking into sasquatch. There are a few outlyers but by and large the topic is ignored by science because scientists see no reason to examine the idea any longer.

The same with all of the sciences, cold-fusion being another case in point. There was claim of breakthrough, science looked at and determined that the claim was unfounded and moved on. Again, there are a few outlyers continuing on but science writ large has moved on.

 

He begs to differ, and as usual he's just begging.  See how he says "science"?  Here's what he is talking about:  'scientists' (who just call themselves that; they're really narrowly-focused techies.  True scientists are rare and they always will be).  Science never puts a question down as long as it is unresolved.  The 'scientists' who see no reason to examine the idea any longer have never examined the idea.  They show it, in everything they say.

 

Heck, SETI lost government funding and it was only through extraordinarily deep pockets that it was able to carry on.

 

Because, kidz?  Ready?  CHORUS! SCIENCE NEVER PUTS A QUESTION DOWN AS LONG AS IT IS UNRESOLVED!!!!!  Nice job!  Ahead of B-man already.

 

So I do not grant your premise that science is an infinite loop of inquiry regardless of previous results.

 

Ready, kidz?  CHORUS!  SCIENCE DOESN'T CARE WHAT THE UNINFORMED THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 22, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Yeah, what you said DWA.

 

Look Bodhi, you can propose what you think scientific inquiry is all you like. Better yet though, you could also go and do some simple research of proposed theories with supporting  evidence that have not been resolved yet, and which might not be anytime soon. BF is just one of those.  We file these under "unresolved" and science is  fine with those. Yeah, it is a messy business. You want tidy answers on a timetable, take up crosswords. They have all the answers you couldn't figure out in the next edition. 

 

What you are proposing instead is simply not open to interpretation, so disagreement is not on the menu any more than it is up for grabs if the sky is blue. You don't produce the evidence (You don't...right?) and neither do I. So, given that, why do you think you get to presume to know when that evidence shouldn't be pursued any longer?  I mean, if you want to give up on finding the answers, be sure not to let the door slap your butt on the way out and take somebody with you.. Just don't confuse that capitulation with anything to do with true scientific inquiry. It is anything but.  

 

If you can't explain ALL  (O.K., I'd settle for almost all...) the evidence, you don't close the door.  The reason all of us curious are still here is just because of that fact. 

[Guest DWA]

..aaaaaaaaaaand what you said.

[Guest DWA]

Oh.  Explaining the evidence must come with *proof that you are right,* else we will rightly stick with the evidence, which says *we are.*  How science works.