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

[Night Walker]

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.

 

I don't claim to be better than you or anyone else here and of course I understand that all I have is subjective - it is what I am espousing. I'm not here to be cynical...

 

We're all as subjective as each other. All my thoughts, experiences, memories - unless supported by "tangible evidence" (Here, boy! Sit!) - are completely subjective and so are yours, JDL. The best Bigfoot evidence is subjective - not objective. That is an important starting place for any potential re-examination of the whole phenomenon...

 

And science HAS been looking at this kind of thing (ie basically, the science of subjectivity in relation to Yeti, Bigfoot, etc) but many here don't seem to be aware of it. Why not broader our understanding of what Bigfoot is or may be? 

[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?

 

 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.

 

 

Police may investigate further when there is "tangible evidence" there was a crime. An alleged burglary is just a claim - one with no "tangible evidence" that anything was actually stolen so you would expect the police not to investigate further, wouldn't you? It's a bad analogy because the "scientists" have been investigating Yeti/Bigfoot further and the objective physical evidence up to now is a bust. Like it or not that is significant so you have to either explain why it is or explain your way around it. I would prefer the former - to attempt to understand why, wouldn't you? Science has been on the job, DWA, and in this instance you may not be up to speed on it...

[Night Walker]

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

 

 

But do you understand that your claim is - objectively speaking - little/no different to another's supernatural claim? That's a key thing...

[Guest]

 

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

 

 

But do you understand that your claim is - objectively speaking - little/no different to another's supernatural claim? That's a key thing...

 

 

An objectivity that makes assumptions, such as "neither exist outside of the psyche" in order to make a straw man comparison of one thing to another. Is not objectivity.

[dmaker]

Nightwalker, I think it would be interesting if you were to open a thread on the current science of subjectivity in crypto topics such as bigfoot, yeti, yeren, etc. I would like to read and participate in such a thread.

[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.

 

I don't claim to be better than you or anyone else here and of course I understand that all I have is subjective - it is what I am espousing. I'm not here to be cynical...

 

We're all as subjective as each other. All my thoughts, experiences, memories - unless supported by "tangible evidence" (Here, boy! Sit!) - are completely subjective and so are yours, JDL. The best Bigfoot evidence is subjective - not objective. That is an important starting place for any potential re-examination of the whole phenomenon...

 

And science HAS been looking at this kind of thing (ie basically, the science of subjectivity in relation to Yeti, Bigfoot, etc) but many here don't seem to be aware of it. Why not broader our understanding of what Bigfoot is or may be? 

 

 

From your subjective perspective this is true, but not from mine, or that of the two people who were with me during my first Class A encounter.  If you and your brother and a friend were in the high desert tomorrow and ran into a bigfoot within arms reach of your friend and you were within a couple of its strides away from it, with clear daylight and nothing obstructing your view, and stood there for forty-five seconds facing it down, but were unprepared to collect evidence; you would know that the encounter took place, you would know that they exist, and you would be told by someone that your very real encounter was a figment of your imagination.

 

It's like telling me that the family cat, which I don't particularly like, but which loves me, doesn't exist.  It still makes me sneeze whether or not you accept that it isn't a figment of my imagination.

 

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

 

 

But do you understand that your claim is - objectively speaking - little/no different to another's supernatural claim? That's a key thing...

 

 

There's a difference.  The subjects I've encountered and observed have never demonstrated anything that could not be explained by common science.  A supernatural claim takes it to the next level.  To the extent that the qualifications and background of the observer offer a distinction, I would expect that to be factored in.  In essence, a direct unmistakable report from a scientist that has been vetted by the military to the level of Field Grade officer and entrusted with a professional license by a State, with a record of accomplishment, would presumably be more seriously considered by an objective investigator.

 

For the sake of argument I'll define subjective vs objective as follows:

 

Subjective skeptic:  "Can't be true, because they don't exist, therefore the observer's experience is imaginary and subjective."

 

Objective skeptic:  "Could be true, but I don't have enough information to confirm it, so I'll consider the information but reserve judgement."

 

Then there's the proselytizing skeptic:

 

"I've got to convince everyone, including the observer that this is all just a social construct, or whatever, because this is what I believe."

Edited November 19, 2015 by JDL

[Guest DWA]

The ongoing critical thinking fail around here is rather amusing.

[dmaker]

"In essence, a direct unmistakable report from a scientist that has been vetted by the military to the level of Field Grade officer and entrusted with a professional license by a State, with a record of accomplishment, would presumably be more seriously considered by an objective investigator." 

 

Argument from authority. Added to which, we have no way to know if any of that is true. Sorry, that's just a fact.

 

You also omitted an additional category:

 

Role-Player: " I construct elaborate fake backgrounds because I like to play games with people on the Internet."

Edited November 19, 2015 by dmaker

[JDL]

Well, a moderator could verify my credentials.  I'd be willing to work with a couple of them.

[dmaker]

I wouldn't expect anyone to share personal information. But on the other hand, you can't expect that everyone is just going to believe everything they read here, either. I know I don't. 

 

It's the Internet, anonymity rules the day. This provides a necessary level of identity protection, but it can also allow for some fancy web weaving. 

 

 

To be clear, I never asked you to take time out of your busy CEO directing day to work with a couple of moderators to verify anything. Nor would I expect anyone to. I am surprised that such a busy business tycoon as yourself would have time to gather your credentials and work with not just one, but a couple of moderators on a bigfoot forum. That is impressive, indeed,  given your super hectic schedule.

 

But if you are going to lean on your claimed credentials and background in a fallacious argument to authority attempt to lend credence to a bigfoot claim, well don't expect everyone to just accept that background as bona fide.

Edited November 19, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

 

Police may investigate further when there is "tangible evidence" there was a crime. An alleged burglary is just a claim - one with no "tangible evidence" that anything was actually stolen so you would expect the police not to investigate further, wouldn't you? It's a bad analogy because the "scientists" have been investigating Yeti/Bigfoot further and the objective physical evidence up to now is a bust. Like it or not that is significant so you have to either explain why it is or explain your way around it. I would prefer the former - to attempt to understand why, wouldn't you? Science has been on the job, DWA, and in this instance you may not be up to speed on it...

 

 

Actually, this post is all the evidence I need of who isn't up to speed on this.

 

Sorry, but this ain't the way it works.  Scientists using their credentials in the way scientific method requires have pretty much proven the animal.  Their claims remain unaddressed.  Called "science fail."

Edited November 19, 2015 by DWA

[dmaker]

Really? Where did they prove the animal? In a flimsy pamphlet one can buy in the paranormal section of Amazon? In an episode of Monsterquest?  They have made no claims in proper scientific channels. THAT is science fail.

 

Which animal are you talking about? Yeti or bigfoot? 

Edited November 19, 2015 by dmaker

[JDL]

I wouldn't expect anyone to share personal information. But on the other hand, you can't expect that everyone is just going to believe everything they read here, either. I know I don't. 

 

It's the Internet, anonymity rules the day. This provides a necessary level of identity protection, but it can also allow for some fancy web weaving. 

 

 

To be clear, I never asked you to take time out of your busy CEO directing day to work with a couple of moderators to verify anything. Nor would I expect anyone to. I am surprised that such a busy business tycoon as yourself would have time to gather your credentials and work with not just one, but a couple of moderators on a bigfoot forum. That is impressive, indeed,  given your super hectic schedule.

 

But if you are going to lean on your claimed credentials and background in a fallacious argument to authority attempt to lend credence to a bigfoot claim, well don't expect everyone to just accept that background as bona fide.

 

I'm confident in the final outcome with regard to whose argument will turn out to be fallacious.

[dmaker]

There will be no final outcome. That is the ultimate comfort zone of the bigfoot claimant. No one can prove that bigfoot does not exist.  There will be no moment of reckoning for proponents. The bigfoot charade will continue ad naseum. It will, no doubt, fluctuate in popularity, but it is not likely to go away any time soon. Anyone can easily fabricate a report that ends up on the BFRO one day and in DWAs proof pile, the next.  It is not difficult to keep the bigfoot wheels spinning.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by dmaker

[ShadowBorn]

And science HAS been looking at this kind of thing (ie basically, the science of subjectivity in relation to Yeti, Bigfoot, etc) but many here don't seem to be aware of it. Why not broader our understanding of what Bigfoot is or may be?

 

Night walker

Is this not the plain that we should be at where I have blackened it? I mean come on there is a split between us and them and it all started in Africa and the Yeti is just a part of this split that I am talking about. Some thing happened some what 6-7 million years ago.  It all took placed in Africa and moved to Asia and some how ended in the Europeans.

 

All I can say is that I cannot dismiss my sightings and what I saw either or My personal encounters. What I saw and encountered are real. They are flesh and blood creatures with things I cannot explain.

 

A broader understanding of these creatures existence would be more field time, Establishing contact, gaining trust and being able to accept new ideas. New thought is what it will take to understand these creatures and if they have human in their DNA. Well then we just have to think what we would do in their shoes of what they see of us.

 

There must be a good reason of them if they choose to remain hidden from us. Even if they might find us strange as we do them they  choose when to be seen.