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

[JDL]

Nightwalker, you must understand that everything you have espoused is nothing more than your own theory, your own subjective reasoning, your own beliefs, your own conceit.  It holds no more validity than you assign to the statements of bigfoot proponents.

[Guest DWA]

Exactly.  It is the imagined privileged position of people whose words are the clearest indication that they haven't read or thought about this that I find continually amusing.

[ShadowBorn]

JDL

Your thought on this that every ones  perspective is wrong? If you are saying this then you are right since not one person here see these creatures the same. It does not matter what part of the earth we see them there is some thing about them we will never understand... I do not even want to try to understand and there is no reason too. There will always be these arguments among us all who believe and who do not. Yet some how these creatures keep on reaching out to us as a whole in humanity.. We do not ask for it yet they choose too and for what benefit to us as humans.

 

All I can say is that if a people have chosen to exist with a creature that others say do not exist . Well then who are we to change them or to force them to give up their beliefs. As long as these people are living in peace with these creatures then there is no need for them to report them. They have learned to let them be .

[Guest DWA]

 

 

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.

 

Right.  Point totally made.  What the police do, scientists should be doing.  But.They.Don't.  Unlike the coppers, they refuse to assess evidence that is yelling a conclusion at them.

Edited November 18, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

DWA, could you possibly try to go maybe a day (ok, that is probably too much), or at least a half dozen posts, ok, one, one post that does not include an off topic, obsessive condemnation of scientists?

 

Thanks

Edited November 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Twist]

Perhaps the scientist do not believe the anecdotal evidence that is in front them amounts to proof? Believing it does not amount to proof does not necessarily mean they have not considered the evidence. Just because it's enough for you does not mean it's enough for them.

Edited November 18, 2015 by TWlST

[Guest DWA]

No.  Not the right answer.  It IS enough for them.  Or they would say why it is not.  Know what they say?  A bunch of things.  All of them unbecoming a scientist.  That's how you know.

 

It does not have to amount to proof to command attention.  Science is about answers, not proof.  Well over 99% of the answers in scientific history proved nothing.  But they led to proof.  Anyone of scientific bent, paying attention, knows the evidence demands an answer...that it points to.

[dmaker]

DWA, to borrow from JDL:

 

"[DWA] you must understand that everything you have espoused is nothing more than your own theory, your own subjective reasoning, your own beliefs, your own conceit.  It holds no more validity than you assign to the statements of bigfoot [skeptics]".

[Twist]

Not the right answer in your opinion. And obviously it IS NOT enough for the majority of scientists. We being the general public have no idea what scientist are studying and looking at. Do you know the name of every scientist and exactly what they are studying? Does a scientist that is looking into Bigfoot have to report to you each day so you can keep track of them? I'm on the fence regarding belief as I have mentioned before. I believe the possibility is high that one could exist and believe the probability is 50%. So if I was forced to lay my chips on one side in a life or death situation I'd lean towards existence. There are definitely days that sways a little each way. All that being said, at this point the evidence is not enough to confirm without a doubt it exists. I would like it to exist but no matter how much I want to believe in it it doesn't make it any more proven yet.

[Incorrigible1]

Not the right answer in your opinion. And obviously it IS NOT enough for the majority of scientists. We being the general public have no idea what scientist are studying and looking at. Do you know the name of every scientist and exactly what they are studying? Does a scientist that is looking into Bigfoot have to report to you each day so you can keep track of them? I'm on the fence regarding belief as I have mentioned before. I believe the possibility is high that one could exist and believe the probability is 50%. So if I was forced to lay my chips on one side in a life or death situation I'd lean towards existence. There are definitely days that sways a little each way. All that being said, at this point the evidence is not enough to confirm without a doubt it exists. I would like it to exist but no matter how much I want to believe in it it doesn't make it any more proven yet.

Our resident science pronouncier would try (fail, but try) to shame you into reading more reports. To him that is the ultimate proof, unverifiable reports. Simple, yes. Repeated umpteen times? Boring and predictable.

[Twist]

I heard somewhere that if I read enough I'll earn my junior scientist badge!

[Guest DWA]

Not the right answer in your opinion. And obviously it IS NOT enough for the majority of scientists. We being the general public have no idea what scientist are studying and looking at. Do you know the name of every scientist and exactly what they are studying? Does a scientist that is looking into Bigfoot have to report to you each day so you can keep track of them? I'm on the fence regarding belief as I have mentioned before. I believe the possibility is high that one could exist and believe the probability is 50%. So if I was forced to lay my chips on one side in a life or death situation I'd lean towards existence. There are definitely days that sways a little each way. All that being said, at this point the evidence is not enough to confirm without a doubt it exists. I would like it to exist but no matter how much I want to believe in it it doesn't make it any more proven yet.

They'd be keeping this Top Secret from us exactly why?

 

All I can tell you is what I have read and heard scientists say on this.  It doesn't even pass the most cursory scientific sniff test.  It shows without any further need to do anything that either (1) they're holding out on us or (2) they don't know what they're talking about, because no one with my grasp of the evidence could possibly say what they say.  Not my fault, right?

Meldrum has thrown down; Bindernagel has thrown down; Mionczynski has thrown down; a number of others have thrown down...and what they have put forth is not even being addressed.  Now, why would that be?

No one who fails to answer that question even deserves time of day from me or anyone else serious, degrees be damned.  People like Inc1 can worship the purple robes of something they don't even understand all they want.  But fact is, on most stuff, it isn't really that hard, if you know a fair amount about it, to know whether a scientist pronouncing on it does...or not.

[dmaker]

Do we not have a state of sasquatch science thread already?

Science deals with testable evidence. Meldrum and Bindernagel have provided none. They have published books and pamphlets. These are not testable by other scientists. Perhaps some peer reviewed articles might be a better start?

Testable evidence gets tested when it is offered. Look at Sykes for recent examples and results history.

Meldrum and Bindernagel have not thrown down. They offer untestable books outside of peer review. They team up with hoaxers and appear on shows like Monsterquest. That you think this constitutes throwing down explains much. They have yet to even step into the ring.

Edited November 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Twist]

Good point DMaker, not the right topic and no point even having that discussion with a broken record.

So.....back the yeti.......

[JDL]

For the record:  I don't have a problem with objectively skeptical positions.  And I do have a problem with supernatural claims.

 

And I don't have enough information on why yeti reports are declining to do more than speculate.