Bbc Article: Why Don't People See The Yeti Anymore?

[Faenor]

Oh dear wesTy where do you get such notions. When did I ever say Bigfoot does not exist or could not exist. You clearly need to do your homework and research my posts, as JDL demands. The new CEO of my company gets a 375k salary, stock options, and a house in Baja I don't have time to explain my particular thoughts on the existence of Sasquatch.

Bigfoot is a silly subject in the minds of the public and JDL is having a hard time answering questions from nightcrawler.

[norseman]

Nightcrawler?

[Guest DWA]

As we all know, the public is the last place one goes to assess the seriousness of anything.

At the frontiers of science, here is the word to characterize the public:  ignorant.  Never has changed and never will.

[SWWASAS]

Oh they know where the BF existence threads are but instead of talk about the Yeti they want to try to get it going here by hijacking this thread.     The resident skeptics do that over and over again.  

 

I still see no immediate correlation between existence or not of Yeti and bigfoot.       There are large apes living in Africa but that does not make them any more likely to be living in North America than simply evidence that large apes can exist someplace.   Giganto is just the same sort of "it is possible" evidence.      If the largest ape living or that had ever existed in the fossil record was the size of a small monkey,  then it would be unlikely that anything larger had ever existed.     Not impossible just unlikely.    All the matter of probabilities which much of this discussion is really about.   The presence of past and present large apes in Africa and Asia makes Yeti more likely.    But some view the world as black and white not a matter of probability.  Many skeptics seem to be in that black and white group.       DWA is really talking about probability with regard to evidence.    There is simply too much evidence that something exists for it to be impossible for there to be a Yeti or BF for that matter.   What they are and how many they are just not yet determined.         

[Guest DWA]

"Probability" includes the probability that any alternative scenario to the existence of the animals, given the evidence and what we know of objective reality, has a ghost of a shot of being the case.

 

Not happening.  There isn't one that even makes rational sense.  NOT happening.

[LeafTalker]

Sincere and heartfelt thanks to JDL, SWWASP, DWA, and WesT for all you do. 

 

(Oops, and Jayjeti, MIB, and Flashman. And Norseman, you did make me laugh. That was a beaut, that last one.)  

Edited November 17, 2015 by LeafTalker

[Guest WesT]

Oh dear wesTy where do you get such notions. When did I ever say Bigfoot does not exist or could not exist. You clearly need to do your homework and research my posts, as JDL demands.

Bigfoot is a silly subject in the minds of the public and JDL is having a hard time answering questions from nightcrawler.

LOL. Try researching my past posts on here and watch what happens. That's right, you can't go back very far can you? JDL was probably unaware of that as I was until I was tasked to do so. Learn something new everyday.

 

Yeah, BF is such a silly subject in the minds of the public that shows like Finding Bigfoot get cancelled after one season. And you may counter, in a broad statement, by saying that the general public is simply amused by the silliness of it. But in reality, what you're doing is, you're trying to paint a detailed picture with a paint roller.

 

Trust me, I don't mind the skeptical pov, but, if you like the "scientific high ground", of no proof, and want to drone on and on about it in every thread you participate in, then that is going to limit where your posts are welcome.

Edited November 17, 2015 by WesT

[JDL]

Thanks, LeafTalker.  There are people on this forum, both skeptical and proponent, that I've learned to appreciate.

 

Oh dear wesTy where do you get such notions. When did I ever say Bigfoot does not exist or could not exist. You clearly need to do your homework and research my posts, as JDL demands.

Bigfoot is a silly subject in the minds of the public and JDL is having a hard time answering questions from nightcrawler.

LOL. Try researching my past posts on here and watch what happens. That's right, you can't go back very far can you? JDL was probably unaware of that as I was until I was tasked to do so. Learn something new everyday.

 

Yeah, BF is such a silly subject in the minds of the public that shows like Finding Bigfoot get cancelled after one season. And you may counter, in a broad statement, by saying that the general public is simply amused by the silliness of it. But in reality, what you're doing is, you're trying to paint a detailed picture with a paint roller. Trust me, I don't mind the skeptical pov, but, if you like the "scientific high ground" of no proof

 

 

Heck, I'm still waiting for these jokers to come back screaming because the forum search engine doesn't allow you to search 3-letter terms.

[dmaker]

"Jokers"? We get to use  a group pejorative to refer to those we disagree with now?

[JDL]

No, only to describe those who don't approach the subject seriously (i.e. with a lack of objectivity), or who treat it as a joke.  It's a precise descriptor in this context.

[dmaker]

Hmm, so if I felt that someone wasn't being truthful, I could call them a liar? I mean, it's a precise descriptor in this context, no?

[JDL]

If the person can be proven to be a liar or admits it. 

 

They have an admitted lack of objectivity.

[dmaker]

Lots of proponents here have a proven lack of objectivity. For example, people like DWA insist there is a 0% chance that bigfoot does not exist. Never even claiming to have seen one. I would call that lacking some objectivity. Do I get to call him names now? 

 

Even your sighting is just a claim. Some might argue that since you rule out any sort of fault in your own perception, that you might be lacking some objectivity. Based on that, can we start calling you names as well?

[dmaker]

I guess you're busy giving orders to CEOs and such.

[Guest]

Anyyyyyywayyyyyyy....

 

Lake County Bigfoot posted this in another thread...

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/WILDMEN-IN-MYANMAR.pdf

 

I'll admit I've just been skimming it so far, thoughts were occurring to me though. That region from the 40s to the 60s and further north was a communist battleground. Therefore it seems to me a reasonable proposition that such wildmen as existed there, may have fled out the way further north, ending up in Nepal and environs, thus creating a rather larger population than usual, just scraping by in the snowy wastes leading to a relative "yeti flap" in the 50s. As that region calmed down again, they may have filtered back again, to richer pastures. Or the 1959 Tibetan uprising, which involved a lot of Chinese artillery shelling and troop movement, may have chased them south again. Since these trials may have decimated their population somewhat, there might have been spare carrying capacity in the less marginal Burman jungles, tempting away the original Nepalese populations, who had been pushed into that more marginal territory by competition. If they hadn't moved by then, the '96-06 Nepalese civil war might have been a motivator, and a killer of them.

 

Suffice it to say, that there appear to be a number of external factors that could explain a reduction in "Yeti" sightings from that "golden age" to the present.