Patterson-Gimlin Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 It is actually amazing to me that anyone can claim proof for existence of an unproven creature when there is none after all of these years. I enjoy the mystery and that's what it is not proven.
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 There is no way that anyone of scientific bent with a good grasp of the evidence would have any rationale for it being anything other than what the evidence says. And...wait for it...no one of scientific bent with a good grasp of the evidence considers the animal unlikely. Proof is overrated. Most scientific work is done to *get* proof. This is virtually the only field screaming for that kind of effort from the mainstream...that is not getting it. Based on the evidence....look, if anyone ever asks you to bet all your assets on sasquatch, up or down...betting it's not real would be foolish.
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 "Mistakes, lies, poor perception, etc, etc can easily explain bigfoot in its entirety." Really? Then...why *don't they*? PROVE that they do. Or else...just your blow and no show. Correct? Correctomundo. The current evidence supports social construct over unclassified animal. This is most strongly demonstrated by the complete lack of a bigfoot anywhere. Now, why don't you prove the opposite?
Will Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 As much as I can't stand that Dmaker would be correct, he is, there isn't any real evidence. BUT, there are folks on here that supposedly have regular contact, but they just want to keep it to themselves, the world isn't worthy. 1
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) "Real" is a subjective distinction. Who defines which piece of evidence is real and which is not? Who determines the criteria? dmaker has dismissed the entire body of reports as anecdotal, claiming that none of them can be trusted. To describe something as anecdotal and then investigate it is a realistic scientific approach. To describe something as anecdotal and simply dismiss it is not a realistic approach. It is just a subjective manifestation of his belief system. Edited September 16, 2015 by JDL 2
roguefooter Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) They are intertwined. If people claim aliens are coming down in ships and abducting them, and we evidence of UFOs flying around our airspace? Do you see the problem? We have none of this with Bigfoot. It's much more clear cut. People also claim UFO's with Bigfoot, and have for many years. Maybe you should go listen to the Les Stroud interview posted in the paranormal section. It's not as clear cut as you think. It's just one of the many aspects of Bigfoot that people like to conveniently filter out based on their personal view. Edited September 16, 2015 by roguefooter
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 As much as I can't stand that Dmaker would be correct, he is, there isn't any real evidence. BUT, there are folks on here that supposedly have regular contact, but they just want to keep it to themselves, the world isn't worthy. I don't think you have to worry about dmaker being correct; the evidence says otherwise. (It surprises me how many people spend a LOT of time here that aren't acquainted with it.) And yeah, well, can't get into habituators. Either hooey or the truth; and I have to admit that were I a habituator ...and seeing the reception this topic gets...I'd thumb my nose at the world too.
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) "Real" is a subjective distinction. Who defines which piece of evidence is real and which is not? Who determines the criteria? dmaker has dismissed the entire body of reports as anecdotal, claiming that none of them can be trusted. To describe something as anecdotal and then investigate it is a realistic scientific approach. To describe something as anecdotal and simply dismiss it is not a realistic approach. It is just a subjective manifestation of his belief system. Investigating an anecdote is not the same as testing evidence. How many anecdotes must be "investigated" before one gets to cry Uncle? I never said that none of the anecdotes can be trusted. My point was, and is, that the truth of an anecdote can never be ascertained. That is why, as a source of scientific evidence, they are useless. They cannot be tested or falsified. Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Well, I gues it's a matter of degree, because I don't conflate the two despite common Fortean attitudes. I've never seen any evidence first hand to support the combination.
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Investigating an anecdote is not the same as testing evidence. How many anecdotes must be "investigated" before one gets to cry Uncle? Well, we've gone over and over and over again about testing evidence. One could go back and read it. Anecdotal evidence, science has known forever, poses the test: go there and one should find this. Worked for P and G; worked for NAWAC; and whether you know yet or not...matters not a whit.
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 "Real" is a subjective distinction. Who defines which piece of evidence is real and which is not? Who determines the criteria? dmaker has dismissed the entire body of reports as anecdotal, claiming that none of them can be trusted. To describe something as anecdotal and then investigate it is a realistic scientific approach. To describe something as anecdotal and simply dismiss it is not a realistic approach. It is just a subjective manifestation of his belief system. Investigating an anecdote is not the same as testing evidence. How many anecdotes must be "investigated" before one gets to cry Uncle? I never said that none of the anecdotes can be trusted. My point was, and is, that the truth of an anecdote can never be ascertained. That is why, as a source of scientific evidence, they are useless. They cannot be tested or falsified. How do you, personally, go about investigating anecdotes? All I've ever seen you do is dismiss them.
David NC Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 ^^^ Do you believe there may still be a population of T-Rex running around? No? Why not? There are some sightings of mini t-rex in the four corners area. There are also reports of other bi-pedal dinosaur type animals from other places. http://s8int.com/articles/157/19/dino7.html
norseman Posted September 16, 2015 Admin Posted September 16, 2015 In order to understand DWA's mindset as well as others on this forum that argue that we have enough evidence to call it a "defacto discovery", you need to read this book. http://www.beachcomberbooks.com/discovery/about.html My only issue is this, if we were talking about a new species of shrew or monkey or bird? Then Bindernagel speaking as a biologist is right, we could send a picture in of the discovery to CNN and invite science to come out and take a look, the type specimen being collected would be a mere formality. But of course we are not dealing with an animal like that. Extant Apes other than Humans only live in tropical areas, and none in the Americas. And its reportedly to be a giant, so how did science miss something so large? Add to these problems the hoaxing that has went on with the subject? Its going to take a body, sorry, but it is. This is what I have resolved myself to. I do not get out as much as I'd like to but there are those of us that do. As far as the evidence? Its a gray area, more compelling to some than to others. Only time will tell. They are intertwined. If people claim aliens are coming down in ships and abducting them, and we evidence of UFOs flying around our airspace? Do you see the problem? We have none of this with Bigfoot. It's much more clear cut. People also claim UFO's with Bigfoot, and have for many years. Maybe you should go listen to the Les Stroud interview posted in the paranormal section. It's not as clear cut as you think. It's just one of the many aspects of Bigfoot that people like to conveniently filter out based on their personal view. Or knowledge.....
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) Investigating an anecdote is not the same as testing evidence. How many anecdotes must be "investigated" before one gets to cry Uncle? Well, we've gone over and over and over again about testing evidence. One could go back and read it. Anecdotal evidence, science has known forever, poses the test: go there and one should find this. Worked for P and G; worked for NAWAC; and whether you know yet or not...matters not a whit. My bold. Yes, I agree. That is not the same thing, however, as testing a piece of evidence using the scientific method. Something that cannot be done with anecdotes. "Go there and one should find this." This has not worked for bigfoot. Despite your affection for NAWAC and others, none of them have ever produced any tangible evidence that can be directly linked to an unclassified primate in North America. Going there and looking is not working because there is no animal to find. Whether you know that or not, matters not a whit. Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker
FarArcher Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Men are and have been executed based on eyewitness testimony, under the principle of finding the facts to reach the truth. I see scientists presenting an entire "reconstruction" of a Gigantopithicus, and the only fossils available are a partial lower jaw and a few teeth. Other orthodox scientist have put forth that this species was likely bipedal - and go on to give us insights on how it lived. There are countless newspaper articles with accompanying photographs of giants unearthed in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and time and again, reports tell of the skulls or skeletons being sent to the Smithsonian. Oddly, the Smithsonian has none on display, and when asked where the remains that were sent to them are - they'll tell one that they don't exist. Science has a narrative all their own. If you're of the scientific priesthood, your prime objective is to be published in a sanctified, sanitized, scientific periodical, peer-reviewed, for purposes of separating yourself from the unwashed, lesser scientists who are not published. God forbid one provide evidence or question their authority, lest one be declared anathema by the self-appointed, self-regulated scientific clergy. The preponderance of evidence ranges through the millennia - and to ignore that evidence - narratives both verbal and written - is a forced attempt to swim upstream. I personally don't care if one is a skeptic. I used to be. And when that big *** ran at me for 60 yards, missing me by twenty feet, and continued on another 20 yards behind me, there was no mistaken identity, no hallucination, no mistaken identity, and certainly not a mistaken perception. I am a well trained observer in the wild - I never shot at movement - in fact, I always took care to be certain of what I was seeing, identify whether friend or foe, and when foe - not just shoot him, but to place my shot. It's easy enough to learn if you want to make sure you never, ever kill one of your own, just because you were in a hurry. I was a skeptic. But I wasn't a fanatic about it. I didn't care about it enough to even disagree. As a true skeptic, I just didn't care that much one way or another. Often, I see some trying just a bit too hard. Maybe they're frustrated they are not among those who have witnessed something spectacular. In such a fashion, maybe they think this helps cover the fact that they either don't get out to remote areas much, or that they themselves are incapable of seeing one of these critters due to their own incompetence. Either way, I don't care - from the other side of the fence. Some are pretty sure. Some know. Some can't. 1
Recommended Posts