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

[dmaker]

MIB, again, no. You are trying to sneak in the word evidence unqualified. That is inherently dishonest and misleading. 

 

Evidence can support a claim, yet not be proof. You want every piece of putative bigfoot evidence to be called evidence, as if it were evidence that supported the claim. Even when that evidence is tested and comes no where close to supporting the claim. 

 

 

Is a cast of a hoaxed bigfoot track hard evidence? There are plenty of those and they certainly do not support the bigfoot claim. Not many would point to a proven fake cast and call it hard evidence for bigfoot.

Edited November 11, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

I would say that Bigfoot evidence is evidence until its PROVEN it's something else. Right?

 

You think you see Squatch take a dump in the bushes over there, so you go collect the sample. That's Bigfoot evidence right?

 

Then it gets a DNA test and it comes up Cat/Dog/Billygoat/whatever. At this point it's no longer Bigfoot evidence........it's proof a Cat or whatever took a dump there.

 

By the same logic if the Bigfoot DNA is tested and is proven to be a unknown species of Primate? Well then it's no longer evidence but proof right?

[MIB]

Putative evidence IS evidence.   Testing leads to 3 possible outcomes ... validation, ambiguity (thus back to the putative "bucket"), or invalidation.    I suppose, functionally, we're arguing about which of the 3 qualifiers should be implicitly applied to "evidence" when none explicitly are.    I don't think we're going to agree on this.

 

I'm heading back to the sidelines 'til there's substance to discuss.  

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

Waste of time even engaging the denialists.     The proverbial BF will be on the proverbial lab table and these same people will be questioning the credentials of those who examined it and determined it is a previously unknown to science species.  What do PHDs really know anyway?  Just another delusional Ketchum or Meldrum wanting to get rich with a hoax.           They will not simply tuck tail and fall silent.   They will not admit they were wrong.    They have too much invested in their belief system to simply walk away.    Part of that is their constant mantra about no evidence existing.    Because some videos have been faked all are.   Because some footprints have been faked they all are.   Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA,  they must all be something else.    All evidence, good or bad has to be dismissed because they cannot even let the possibility they are wrong into their mind or the discussion here.   Thousands of witnesses spanning hundreds of years are wrong and misidentified what they saw.  It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear.       Only the enlightened skeptics know what is real and they will not be satisfied until everyone thinks like they do.    Oh there are delusional people here on both sides, but the most delusional of the lot are those that think they can know what every witness must have seen.    At least a BF witness does not have to think themselves an omnipresent demigod to know what is seen in the woods.         

[dmaker]

" Because some videos have been faked all are." No, that is faulty logic.  The problem is that no videos have been proven to depict a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some footprints have been faked they all are. " No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no footprints have been proven to come from a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA,  they must all be something else. "  No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no DNA results have been proven to come from a bigfoot, or unknown primate. 

 

Do you see the pattern, and hence, the problem? It should obvious. 

 

 

" It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear. "  Argument to authority. Hunters can make mistakes and hunters can lie just like anyone else. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by dmaker

[Guest Crowlogic]

Waste of time even engaging the denialists.     The proverbial BF will be on the proverbial lab table and these same people will be questioning the credentials of those who examined it and determined it is a previously unknown to science species.  What do PHDs really know anyway?  Just another delusional Ketchum or Meldrum wanting to get rich with a hoax.           They will not simply tuck tail and fall silent.   They will not admit they were wrong.    They have too much invested in their belief system to simply walk away.    Part of that is their constant mantra about no evidence existing.    Because some videos have been faked all are.   Because some footprints have been faked they all are.   Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA,  they must all be something else.    All evidence, good or bad has to be dismissed because they cannot even let the possibility they are wrong into their mind or the discussion here.   Thousands of witnesses spanning hundreds of years are wrong and misidentified what they saw.  It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear.       Only the enlightened skeptics know what is real and they will not be satisfied until everyone thinks like they do.    Oh there are delusional people here on both sides, but the most delusional of the lot are those that think they can know what every witness must have seen.    At least a BF witness does not have to think themselves an omnipresent demigod to know what is seen in the woods.         

Here is a teeny tiny fraction of the bilge water that fills the tank of bigfoot world.  Of course say you it's not all bilge it's just that the bilge gets more and better press.  Well here's your chance to flush a bit of the bilge water with some pure real bigfoot stuff.  As a believer and researcher obviously committed to your avocation I must assume you have the pure bigfoot stuff that supports your commitment.  

 

[SWWASAS]

Pure bigfoot stuff as defined by you?   Nothing short of a body on a lab table would probably be sufficient to even get you to look.   Then as you have done with myself  and others, you would go after the scientists involved.   Doubting their credentials, questioning their motives,   and above all questioning their reasoning.     We have seen that over and over.  

 

Again you forget I am a witness not a believer. I went from open minded skeptic to witness in one encounter.     I don't need anything to know what I experienced was not a bear and I have the picture to prove it.   But sadly you will have to wait for any book I write to see that.    Not that I would expect you to read it.   Would you consider writing a forward in the front of the book?    Just that would probably sell more books for forum members than anything I could do.    If I should write a book there will be a very large chapter on skeptics and deniers.   Quite frankly I think some of you are the most interesting aspect of the whole BF genre.   You have to remember that this forum and the internet is forever.   What you have said has become public record.     I cannot figure out what makes you tick or why you care enough to hang out on a bigfoot forum but there is enough material just on this forum from skeptics and deniers to fill a book on just that topic.       

Edited November 11, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

" Because some videos have been faked all are." No, that is faulty logic.  The problem is that no videos have been proven to depict a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some footprints have been faked they all are. " No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no footprints have been proven to come from a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA,  they must all be something else. "  No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no DNA results have been proven to come from a bigfoot, or unknown primate. 

 

Do you see the pattern, and hence, the problem? It should obvious. 

 

 

" It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear. "  Argument to authority. Hunters can make mistakes and hunters can lie just like anyone else. 

You keep using the word proven.      Proven or proof and evidence are not the same thing but you constantly equate them.   Just that is faulty logic and misleading on your part and I think you know it.    You just showed an example of someone who thinks they are omnipresent.     You seem to believe that you are in a better position to know what a life long woodsman saw in the woods than they were. 

Edited November 11, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Faenor]

   If I should write a book there will be a very large chapter on skeptics and deniers.   Quite frankly I think some of you are the most interesting aspect of the whole BF genre.  

I would avoid this. Munns does in his book and it brings the whole thing down a bit. The book would have been better and maybe taken more seriously if he left the skeptic:proponent Internet forum out.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Pure bigfoot stuff as defined by you?   Nothing short of a body on a lab table would probably be sufficient to even get you to look.   Then as you have done with myself  and others, you would go after the scientists involved.   Doubting their credentials, questioning their motives,   and above all questioning their reasoning.     We have seen that over and over.  

 

Again you forget I am a witness not a believer. I went from open minded skeptic to witness in one encounter.     I don't need anything to know what I experienced was not a bear and I have the picture to prove it.   But sadly you will have to wait for any book I write to see that.    Not that I would expect you to read it.   Would you consider writing a forward in the front of the book?    Just that would probably sell more books for forum members than anything I could do.    If I should write a book there will be a very large chapter on skeptics and deniers.   Quite frankly I think some of you are the most interesting aspect of the whole BF genre.   You have to remember that this forum and the internet is forever.   What you have said has become public record.     I cannot figure out what makes you tick or why you care enough to hang out on a bigfoot forum but there is enough material just on this forum from skeptics and deniers to fill a book on just that topic.       

And the beat goes on.  You wonder what makes a person such as myself tick.  A morbid fascination with self delusion is a good place to begin.  Bigfootism is one of the few constructs where perpetual failure occupies the seat closest to perpetual fraud.  I don't know how you research and I don't know what you encounter in your research.  But I do know that truly solid incontrovertible evidence makes it to somewhere somehow.   If I were to tell a detached observer that there's this guy  Sasquatchproject who can delver the goods and they should check him out exactly what would you be delivering that's any more conclusive or beyond reproach than anything else?

 

Let's use Timbergiant's Big Red.  Man he'll sweat up down and sideways he's on the level but every bigfooter youtuber except perhaps Butchiekid says exactly the same thing.  Like.... Oh believe me,  don't believe Timbergiant or Anthony Moffet they're just having fun in the forest for you tube subscriptions.   BTW I like Anthony Moffet.

 

You didn't create the bigfoot circus, it's here there longer than you have.  But like it or not it casts a very long shadow over the entire subject.   And like it or not each and every person that lives has the right to say enough is enough.  Bigfootism isn't science or real anthropology/primatology.  It is to those real sciences and disciplines what the WWF is to proper classical wrestling.  Now when does it get real?  When there is the unambiguous, properly vetted, thoroughly questioned from every quarter about every aspect and it requires no excuses and leaves no question marks.

[SWWASAS]

Faenor:   You could very well be right.    Using Crows word just going there is like taking a bath in bilge water.  

 

Back to topic.      I had a deer in my back yard last night.   Did I go around the neighborhood and tell all the neighbors I had a deer in the yard?   No they are common.     Similarly Tibetans just accept Yeti as one of the local creatures and probably no big deal if you see one because you may know several people who have seen one.   Its not like it is a good bar topic to bring up over drinks because where they live there are probably not any local bars either.   

Edited November 11, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

Faenor:   You could very well be right.    Using Crows word just going there is like taking a bath in bilge water.  

 

Back to topic.      I had a deer in my back yard last night.   Did I go around the neighborhood and tell all the neighbors I had a deer in the yard?   No they are common.     Similarly Tibetans just accept Yeti as one of the local creatures and probably no big deal if you see one because you may know several people who have seen one.   Its not like it is a good bar topic to bring up over drinks because where they live there are probably not any local bars either.   

Have you had any Tibetans tell you they take Yeti as a matter of casual fact?  Or is it a supposition because it supports your view?

[dmaker]

Putative evidence IS evidence.   Testing leads to 3 possible outcomes ... validation, ambiguity (thus back to the putative "bucket"), or invalidation.    I suppose, functionally, we're arguing about which of the 3 qualifiers should be implicitly applied to "evidence" when none explicitly are.    I don't think we're going to agree on this.

 

I'm heading back to the sidelines 'til there's substance to discuss.  

 

MIB

Oh, I am sure we can agree. I will agree to use the phrase evidence that when tested supports the bigfoot claim, if you agree to use the phrase invalid evidence that when tested failed to support the bigfoot claim.  Deal? Next time you mention bigfoot scat, be sure to use that phrase, k?

 

Why you would choose to press a semantic argument that will only result in forcing you to highlight the very problem you are trying to mask is beyond me. 

 

" Because some videos have been faked all are." No, that is faulty logic.  The problem is that no videos have been proven to depict a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some footprints have been faked they all are. " No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no footprints have been proven to come from a bigfoot,  or unknown primate.

 

"Because some hair samples don't show any viable DNA,  they must all be something else. "  No, that is faulty logic. The problem is that no DNA results have been proven to come from a bigfoot, or unknown primate. 

 

Do you see the pattern, and hence, the problem? It should obvious. 

 

 

" It makes no difference to them that many of these are life long woodman who know what they saw was not a bear. "  Argument to authority. Hunters can make mistakes and hunters can lie just like anyone else. 

You keep using the word proven.      Proven or proof and evidence are not the same thing but you constantly equate them.   Just that is faulty logic and misleading on your part and I think you know it.    You just showed an example of someone who thinks they are omnipresent.     You seem to believe that you are in a better position to know what a life long woodsman saw in the woods than they were. 

 

Where did I say that I know better than the woodsman what he saw? Where did I say that I even know what he saw? I simply said an experienced woodsman can be just as wrong or dishonest as anyone else out there. In other words, those options remain possibilities. We, in fact,  have many examples of mistakes and hoaxes. And since no one has been able to offer any examples of hard evidence that when tested support the bigfoot claim, then those other alternatives must be the default and most parsimonious explanations.  

Edited November 11, 2015 by dmaker

[SWWASAS]

No you said they are "as wrong and dishonest as anyone else out in the woods".  You have to assume that because your belief system will not allow you to accept what they saw.    Then you jump in with the mistakes and hoaxes argument.    Which is exactly what said you do.    You guys really need to get a different playbook.     The one you are using is worn out and quite frankly tiresome and very very off topic.    

 

Faenor:   You could very well be right.    Using Crows word just going there is like taking a bath in bilge water.  

 

Back to topic.      I had a deer in my back yard last night.   Did I go around the neighborhood and tell all the neighbors I had a deer in the yard?   No they are common.     Similarly Tibetans just accept Yeti as one of the local creatures and probably no big deal if you see one because you may know several people who have seen one.   Its not like it is a good bar topic to bring up over drinks because where they live there are probably not any local bars either.   

Have you had any Tibetans tell you they take Yeti as a matter of casual fact?  Or is it a supposition because it supports your view?

 

Bad example since you make the same sort of judgments about what Tibetans think that you accuse me of.    How many Tibetans have told you that Yeti is a myth and fantasy?   Perhaps you need to go there and lecture them on their own sightings and mistaken animal sightings?    You and Bobo could both be famous there and chased out of the country.   

[dmaker]

You need to re-read what I said and not misquote me please. 

 

You wrote:

 

"No you said they are "as wrong and dishonest as anyone else out in the woods". 

 

 

Nowhere did I say those words. Do you understand how quotations are supposed to work? You don't use quotes and then deliberately, and incorrectly, paraphrase something to suit your needs.  I actually wrote:

 

"Hunters can make mistakes and hunters can lie just like anyone else. "

 

"I simply said an experienced woodsman can be just as wrong or dishonest as anyone else out there." 

 

Please refrain from deliberately misquoting and misconstruing what I said.  Thanks

Edited November 12, 2015 by dmaker