Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[southernyahoo]

I think the evidence should be looked at and conclusions should be drawn based on what is most likely.

I think it is important to not draw conclusions if there is any question as to what the evidence represents, making conclusions based on what is percieved most likely will allow BF to slip through your fingers. Get definitive answers through science before you call it bigfoot or anything else. This allows evidence to be properly placed in the unknown category where it can later be matched to some known source. Simply ignoring or throwing out everything incunclusive, brings progress to a snails crawl. Anomalous evidence is not to be thrown in the trash, we are not constanly starting from scratch here.

Edited May 14, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Alrighty then, just getting a feel for what made you tick. I don't think you will find much disagreement here on the board that bigfoot research needs to be approached more scientifically. What I think you will find is that the serious researchers feel that is exactly what they are doing and resent the inference that it isn't. We don't have too many posting in the research area, maybe the thread should be moved there.....or maybe not, since this is more theoretical. You might get more of the type of discussion you are looking for in that forum.

What really is scientific is a lot more important than what someone thinks is scientific. That's why I've gotten the disagreement that I have. On the first page of this board is a thread centering on the idea that bigfoot is invisible or can cross dimensions; the people who claims like that very well may think they're proposing valid, scientific ideas. That's sort of an extreme example, but I've seen comments like, "bigfoot is smarter than us, so we can't understand it, and "we don't have any evidence because bigfoot doesn't leave any," proliferate discussion in even "normal" topics on this board.

I'm not saying everyone does that, but it is fairly common, which is why I wanted to make the points I have been making. That's also why I made the post in this board; it seemed like there was a greater chance of people who need clarification of analytical thinking reading it.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Southernyahoo, I wrote up a reply to you, but I'm having trouble posting it. Hopefully it'll work later.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Respectfully, I think this line of thinking is at best marginally relevant.

And let me offer a broad "apology" upfront to those who might take offense at some of what follows. Not trying to "troll" or mock. Truly.

Looking for rare animals is not like conducting experiments in a laboratory. That is... if I claimed to make a breakthrough in cold fusion, you could expect me to publish information on how I did it - using what methods, materials and procedures, and so forth - that you could (with the right resources) use to duplicate my experiment. If you COULDN'T duplicate what I had done, well, you would have good reason to question my claims. Or, if I claimed to have come up with a new drug to treat Condition X, you would expect me to publish information, again, on my methods, the trials I had run, and so forth. Again, you could verify what I claimed, or refute it. Or, if I proposed a hypothesis - I assert that this is how gravity works, or the like - I would hopefully be specific enough that when additional observations are made, they would either fit my hypothesis (bolstering it) or contradict it (refuting it or causing it to be modified).

So what does this have to do with the search for Bigfoot?

I think it is relevant only to those who postulate that Bigfoot is s shapeshifting, dimenion hopping "supernatural" creature of limitless ability, to whom the normal physical laws don't apply. In that case, Sagan's "dragon" analogy is, IMHO, relevant. If BF was such a creature, there is no piece of evidence, or lack of same, that could "knock down" the theory. Lack of footprints? No problem. No image on a camera aimed right at it? No problem. And so forth.

But there is nothing "unscientific" about those who think that BF MIGHT be out there, and if so, that it is a living, breathing "animal" of some kind. Those folks fully expect BF to leave footprints, to leave scat, to have foodsources, to be photographable, and such. Most of the folks interested in BF, that I have dealt with, don't shy away from having science examine any piece of evidence that is available - to the contrary, they HUNGER for it, they are EAGER for it. They wish there was MORE scientific curiosity about BF, that MORE scientists were willing to devote time to examining what evidence there is, with an OPEN mind, and that more scientists would get into the hunt.

We can - and do, often and at great length - discuss and debate why that isn't the case... what motivates scientists to research X versus Y. To BF skeptics, that is easy - there isn't enough evidence to suggest there is even a remote but reasonable possibility that BF is "out there". To those who think BF MIGHT be out there, they chalk it up more to scientists falling prey to the general cultural perception of BF as a silly and unserious topic, and thus not examining what evidence there IS, and to the sheer practical fact that scientists DO have to eat, do desire careers, and thus, have to pick and choose what they research, to some extent, based on practical concerns - and funding.

SO...longwinded way of saying that I think the "dragon" analogy might apply to the "BF is a supernatural superbeing" folks, but I don't see its application to the vast majority of BFers, who think that if BF is out there, it is a living, breathing, "normal" animal, subject to the same basic rules and laws, and leaving the same kind of trace evidence, as any other creature.

Shadow

[Guest]

What really is scientific is a lot more important than what someone thinks is scientific. That's why I've gotten the disagreement that I have. On the first page of this board is a thread centering on the idea that bigfoot is invisible or can cross dimensions; the people who claims like that very well may think they're proposing valid, scientific ideas. That's sort of an extreme example, but I've seen comments like, "bigfoot is smarter than us, so we can't understand it, and "we don't have any evidence because bigfoot doesn't leave any," proliferate discussion in even "normal" topics on this board.

I'm not saying everyone does that, but it is fairly common, which is why I wanted to make the points I have been making. That's also why I made the post in this board; it seemed like there was a greater chance of people who need clarification of analytical thinking reading it.

You do realize that the vast majority of us on this board like to speculate and theorize don't you? No one on here is saying those things with any certainty, it's simply conjecture on how certain features may be possible to explain what is reported. Assuming bigfoot exists is the premise for those kinds of threads and then the conjecture moves on from there. Even those that do hardcore research have ideas that they lean toward but I think it's the exception that anyone is absolutely convinced they are right about anything regarding bigfoot.

[Guest]

Thanks Shadow, that was well put and the point I was trying to make with the flawed analogy. You said it best.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

You do realize that the vast majority of us on this board like to speculate and theorize don't you? No one on here is saying those things with any certainty, it's simply conjecture on how certain features may be possible to explain what is reported. Assuming bigfoot exists is the premise for those kinds of threads and then the conjecture moves on from there. Even those that do hardcore research have ideas that they lean toward but I think it's the exception that anyone is absolutely convinced they are right about anything regarding bigfoot.

I know that, I was just pointing out ways to think and speculate scientifically.

And Shadow, I already addressed many of your points earlier.

Edited May 15, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest Blackdog]

You do realize that the vast majority of us on this board like to speculate and theorize don't you?

There's nothing wrong with that but when speculations and theories are presented as fact (which absolutely happens here) the trouble begins. People new to the board and the field often times believe these things to be facts when many times they are not.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Southernyahoo, I wrote up a reply to you, but I'm having trouble posting it. Hopefully it'll work later.

It's still not working, no matter what I try, so I'm going to try attaching a copy/paste of what I wrote in a pdf.

bff post.pdf

[Guest]

There's nothing wrong with that but when speculations and theories are presented as fact (which absolutely happens here) the trouble begins. People new to the board and the field often times believe these things to be facts when many times they are not.

Really? I haven't seen that and I've been here for about a year now. I tend to work off the assumption that my speculations are known to be just speculations.I don't go into the "IMO" or "should bigfoot be proven to exist" every time I post or comment on a theory in the general discussion threads. However, I don't frequent PGF, Minnesota Ice Man, or any of those kinds of threads, so maybe that's where it is happening.

[Guest Blackdog]

I've been a BFF member since 2003 and yes it does happen.

I would post links but I don't think it's necessary and it could be embarrassing to some members but I will if I get pressed on the issue. Maybe some other old timers can chime in.

[Guest]

That's OK, I'll take your word for it, it hasn't been something I specifically remember encountering on here. Probably because I figure they are speaking from the same perspective I am, whether that is actually the case or not.

[Guest]

I am an old timer agreeing with BD. I also won't go into specific threads either but they are here.

I would love for the archives to be accessible. This would really open a lot of new members eyes as to what has been tossed out time and time again...and why I am personally so cynical when comes to many claims. I am sure many others feel the same.

[Guest]

I am an old timer agreeing with BD.

Word. The great majority of my BFF posts address statements presented as fact for which the evidence is flimsy, non-existent, or even counter to the claim.

[Doc Holliday]

as for post #79 by shadowprime.......nice job.