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

[SWWASAS]

"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.

There are proponents that might not agree with you on a couple points you just made in the above statement.  Don't shoot the messenger (me) or think I have invested in either of these alternative theories because I have not.       First of all many do not think them animals.    And secondly there is an increasing woo woo group,  one of which I listened to last Sunday,  (Dr Mathew Johnson) who do not think them animals or even from this planet.    While probabilities that they are some sort of primal people is not that unlikely, the woo woo group cannot be completely dismissed if you look at all the same body evidence you reference as pointing to existence.     Strange things that defy common explanation are often reported.   Whatever they are has to be included in the set of possible explanations even if that sub set of things is very unlikely.      If we dismiss that possibility we are doing exactly the same things that the deniers are accused of;  excluding evidence, or discounting witness reports because they do not fit into our own belief system.     So while extra terrestrial origin might not be accepted by most proponents,  at the same time there is some small probability that might be the answer.     If tomorrow, SETI announced proof of nearby alien planetary systems,   and the day after tomorrow as a result, NASA announced, since the cat is out of the bag,   they have been monitoring ET travel too and from earth, that small probability that BF is alien in origin would just get way more credible and likely.    I will leave it at that but certainly that possibility would explain some reason for a present cover up.   

[JDL]

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?

 

I think you guys already essentially called me a liar earlier in the thread anyway, so have at it again if you want.

[Guest DWA]

Yet another dmaker post showing that - after an amazing number of posts for anyone with no apparent interest in a topic - he isn't gonna get how to think about this.  Pretty much ever. Thanks for quoting it, JDL, just about the only way I see him nowadays.  (He's a name factory.)

I'd say we're pretty much done with this thread.  But I think that the main reason people don't report seeing yeti anymore comes down to:

 

1.  Most westerners, they've found, are pretty much dmaker.

2.  Westerners aren't paying attention; the sightings haven't stopped.

3.  People are seeing it.  It's real.

[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.

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.

That new bigfoot program with the fake capture of bigfoot featuring bigfoot scientist meldrum not silly at all. Im sure like you the public takes such serious shows as finding bigfoot, ancient aliens, or ghost hunters super seriously.

[Twist]

Flashman,

That is pretty interesting info you cross posted here. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet but what I have read is thought provoking. In one instance the wild man imitates the observer, sadly he imitated the act of raising the crossbow just before he was shot at. I'll go back to reading more when time is available.

[Faenor]

This cat Waddell seems to have had the yeti figured out back in 1899

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=PueCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA223&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Guest WesT]

That new bigfoot program with the fake capture of bigfoot featuring bigfoot scientist meldrum not silly at all. Im sure like you the public takes such serious shows as finding bigfoot, ancient aliens, or ghost hunters super seriously.

 

That would be assuming I have cable or satellite tv. lol  I had to drop it because it got to expensive. When I did have it, I watched those shows from time to time. The only one I could say I thought was silly was Mountain Monsters. The other shows I liked because of the different places they would go each episode. That new show, Bigfoot Captured, I haven't seen, so I don't have an opinion on latest docu-fiction the History Channel.has out.

 

Meanwhile back in Nepal........

[LeafTalker]

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

 

 

 

Me, too, JDL.  

 

And yes, WesT, now back to Nepal...... 

[Night Walker]

Well, I'm not done with this thread and I hope others here are also interested in exploring this topic a bit more...

 

 

^^^^That's a very flawed way of looking at a scientific topic.

 

"Tangible evidence" is the scoftical dogwhistle for "proof."  The animal's been proven, to anyone who understands evidence and how science works.  There is simply no other comprehensible, fathomable explanation for the pattern and volume of the evidence, except for what, in the history of our species, it has always been:  precisely what it appears to be.  Proof sufficient to the ignorant simply is not required; there are an estimated 24,456,834 proven scientific facts of which the average person knows nothing.

 

Hmmm… If I’ve been giving off “scoftical dogwhistles†then how is it that you can hear them, DWA?

 

Anyway, I agree that Bigfoot is a scientific topic but is there “simply no other comprehensible, fathomable explanation for the pattern and volume of the evidence†than to say Bigfoot is Real? If you have your hopes pinned on Bigfoot being objectively documented as a real species (or hybrid or entity or whatever) anytime soon then it is to be expected that you would be more likely to seeing confirming patterns of evidence – its natural and we all do it. But, to be objective about it, that has simply not happened (yet) and, despite the exciting nature of the claims, it does not look likely any time soon, right?

 

What’s more – our perceptual/cognitive systems are geared towards seeing patterns within random data. Are the patterns of Bigfoot morphology and behaviours actually real or do they just appear to be real? It’s a valid question. Experientially, there is no difference between the two without “tangible evidence†and, objectively for Yeti/Bigfoot/Yowie, that does not exist (yet). If those patterns are real then they can be documented and demonstrated as such to everyone – not just to those somehow consider themselves to be in the know and more enlightened than everyone else (oh, those poor sheep!) That, too, has not happened and does not look like happening soon, right?

 

It's also quite natural (not pathological) to think and see things in terms of some grand conspiracy but, objectively speaking here, are such Bigfoot conspiracy theories helping or unduly influencing our understanding/experience of the phenomenon (to say nothing of the broader public's perception of the phenomenon)?

 

So, if you’ve been almost solely focused on the conspiracies, claims, and evidence that support your particular views(s) then it is also natural that you might not be abreast with the development of possible alternate scientific explanations – I say that there are “other comprehensible, fathomable explanation for the pattern and volume of the evidenceâ€. The only problem is if you are deeply invested in your own “knowing†of what Bigfoot is that you probably won’t like it and will seek to dismiss it outright. I’m not putting it forward as THE TRUTH but I am putting it forward as a possible explanation worthy of consideration if you truly want to get to the bottom of the Bigfoot phenomenon...

 

Bigfoot IS a scientific topic but, objectively, the science of Bigfoot-as-unidentified-species is not working despite hopes and claims to the contrary. So why not consider a different and legitimate science?

[Guest]

Hmmm confirmation bias you say? That would be where you put on the unthinkability hat and reject everything. Proponent researchers are generally sifting and filtering evidence that comes in, trying to spot fakes and mis-identifications lest it muddy the data. The fact that we pick some as possibly supportive as our viewpoint, is you say unsound. I would argue that to reject everything shows a greater confirmation bias..... you see it in this thread even, the logic is looped, a picture can't prove an unknown primate because no unknown primate is known to exist, a footprint can't be attributed to an unknown primate because there is no proof of an unknown primate...  this is like phoning the police to report a burglary, and they turn up, look around, and if the perpetrator didn't drop his driving license at the scene they tell you it didn't happen, this wasn't a burglary, all in your head, you sure you didn't leave the place like this?

[Night Walker]

I'm not "rejecting" anything. If anything I'm in favour of a more inclusive approach...

 

Edited November 18, 2015 by Night Walker

[Night Walker]

this is like phoning the police to report a burglary, and they turn up, look around, and if the perpetrator didn't drop his driving license at the scene they tell you it didn't happen, this wasn't a burglary, all in your head, you sure you didn't leave the place like this?

 

Your analogy is kind of warped. In police line of duty I would think it is appropriate to inquire as to whether a messed up place was natural or the result of a burglary and the claimant would still have to provide legitimate documentation as to what was stolen anyway. Investigating doesn't mean taking what people say at face value, does it? If the claims are documented then it would be a "suspected burglary" not an imaginary one until the goods turn up somewhere, wouldn't it?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Night Walker

[Night Walker]

... and the chances are that the stolen goods won't turn up so the claimant won't ever really "know" what happened to his/her stolen goods. He/she may strongly suspect to be the victim of a burglary and he/she is probably right. Or maybe a proportion of otherwise mundane "suspected burglaries" have actually been perpetrated by Bigfoot since Bigfoot is consistently reported to enter urban environments and has been habituated to "taking gifts". Would he/she be correct to suspect/conclude that Bigfoot did it? Sure - why not? Its easy especially if you already believe it is possible but that does not make it so (or even likely), does it?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Night Walker

[Guest]

 

this is like phoning the police to report a burglary, and they turn up, look around, and if the perpetrator didn't drop his driving license at the scene they tell you it didn't happen, this wasn't a burglary, all in your head, you sure you didn't leave the place like this?

 

Your analogy is kind of warped. In police line of duty I would think it is appropriate to inquire as to whether a messed up place was natural or the result of a burglary and the claimant would still have to provide legitimate documentation as to what was stolen anyway. Investigating doesn't mean taking what people say at face value, does it? If the claims are documented then it would be a "suspected burglary" not an imaginary one until the goods turn up somewhere, wouldn't it?

 

 Yes, typical investigations conducted by people capable of inductive reasoning do not go like that, that was kinda the point.

[Night Walker]

So why did you bring it up? I'm not suggesting that investigations should be anything but well reasoned. I'm suggesting that the reasoning needs to be broadened and aware of what science is actually doing in relation to Bigfoot and similar phenomenon - you may not be well aware if you've been primarily attached to the undiscovered-species hypothesis. And if you are aware you may not like it but that doesn't necessarily make it not so...