Bigfoot And The Dragon In My Garage

[Guest]

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.

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

[Guest parnassus]

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

The "Bigfoot" has had thousands of years to do what real animals do and hasn't done it. That's not attributable to scientists.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Parnassus- OK, you lost me. Meaning....what?

[Guest LAL]

Parnassus- OK, you lost me. Meaning....what?

Get caught?

[Guest]

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

I'm not sure you want to go there Mulder, but just to illustrate a point: Does Jeff Meldrum have tenure or not? (Feel free to twist the question around, go off on some tangent, etc. I've got a few dozen of these.)

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Parnassus- OK, you lost me. Meaning....what?

Leave conclusive proof of its existence.

By the way, I wasn't being dismissive when I said that I'd already adressed many of your points (if you thought that at all, I'm just trying to make sure you didn't). I just want to avoid repeating myself too much, but I'd be happy to clear things up if you need me to.

[Guest Blackdog]

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

This is the type of civil discourse you want extended to Meldrum?

[Guest ShadowPrime]

BF has failed to leave conclusive proof of its existence? I have no problem agreeing with that. If BF HAD left CONCLUSIVE proof of its existence, then we wouldn't all be here disussing whether or not BF exists, no?

But, respectfully - that wasn't what we were discussing. Or, at least, it wasn't what I was discussing!

My point in THIS thread was pretty simple ... I don't think the Sagan "invisible dragon" line of thinking applies to BF, apart from, possibly, those putting forward the "paranormal BF" theory. As I noted above, and in one of the Threads devoted to the idea of BF as a paranormal "something", a BF that can violate any of the normal physical laws that bind all other animals, that can do pretty much ANYTHING, is a BF that (IMHO) is beyond proof. Again, as noted above - assuming supernatural capabilities, lack of footprints, lack of photographic evidence, and so forth, are no problem for a potentially time and space warping "phantom".

But, in my view, that doesn't apply to a BF that is a flesh and blood animal - which, I strongly suspect, is what the vast majority of those who are open to the possibility of BF believe BF to be.

Now, you may choose to believe that there isn't enough evidence to even warrant a reasonable suspicion that BF IS out there - and we go over and over and over that on just about every other Thread in this forum. BUT I don't think it is a fair criticism to suggest that most "open to the possibility of BF" types are in the "Sagan invisible dragon" trap.

Just sayin' ...

Shadow

[Guest BlurryMonster]

BF has failed to leave conclusive proof of its existence? I have no problem agreeing with that. If BF HAD left CONCLUSIVE proof of its existence, then we wouldn't all be here disussing whether or not BF exists, no?

But, respectfully - that wasn't what we were discussing. Or, at least, it wasn't what I was discussing!

My point in THIS thread was pretty simple ... I don't think the Sagan "invisible dragon" line of thinking applies to BF, apart from, possibly, those putting forward the "paranormal BF" theory. As I noted above, and in one of the Threads devoted to the idea of BF as a paranormal "something", a BF that can violate any of the normal physical laws that bind all other animals, that can do pretty much ANYTHING, is a BF that (IMHO) is beyond proof. Again, as noted above - assuming supernatural capabilities, lack of footprints, lack of photographic evidence, and so forth, are no problem for a potentially time and space warping "phantom".

But, in my view, that doesn't apply to a BF that is a flesh and blood animal - which, I strongly suspect, is what the vast majority of those who are open to the possibility of BF believe BF to be.

Now, you may choose to believe that there isn't enough evidence to even warrant a reasonable suspicion that BF IS out there - and we go over and over and over that on just about every other Thread in this forum. BUT I don't think it is a fair criticism to suggest that most "open to the possibility of BF" types are in the "Sagan invisible dragon" trap.

Just sayin' ...

Shadow

Sagan wasn't talking about cryptids, he was talking about making unfalsifiable claims (claims that can't be proven wrong). Saying bigfoot is a supernatural creature is just an extreme example of that. If bigfoot was a flesh and blood animal, its existence could be tested and verified, which (at least so far), it can't. Making excuses for why is putting forth an untestable claim; maybe not one as extreme as a supernatural explanation, but just as untestable.

A claim of "we can't find evidence because BF is extremely elusive" is just as scientifically meaningless as saying that one is invisible, because you still can't test or find any evidence for it. That might make saying such things more attractive to some people (after all, wouldn't not finding evidence be more evidence of its elusiveness?), but it's still a claim that no evidence can be gathered for.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Blurry- Sorry, but I think that amounts to playing wordgames. Those who believe BF, IF it is" real", to be an animal, offer no such" unverifiable" claims. They expect BF to leave tracks (and believe we have such tracks- see Krantz, Meldrum, etc), and other physical traces. They believe folks should- and do- see BF. They believe BF should be photographable, etc. In other words, they fully expect BF to be as verifiable as any other (rare, elusive, possibly very intelligent) animal would be. These expectations are in direct contradiction to what Sagan was discussing.

When pressed to explain why we don't have MORE such evidence, right now, they may indeed offer speculations as to BF's possible rarity, etc. But on the central, key, relevant question- is BF a living, breathing, tangible animal- I respectfully suggest there are no unverifiable claims being made.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

Put this another way....suppose I said a wolverine was living in the woods near my home. Would that be an unverifiable claim? Suppose you and I went out and searched the woods every day for two weeks, set up camera traps, etc, but got no pics, found no prints, no scat, no signs of predation. What could we say? We could say that we found no evidence of a wolverine. But that wouldn't make my claim" unverifiable", in the sense Sagan discussed, because we certainly could verify my claim the next minute, if we found prints, got a good pic, saw it ourselves, etc.

Now, if I claimed an invisible, heat-masked, levitating dimension hopping psychic wolverine, visible only to ME lived in those woods, you'd have a case for invoking Sagan... ;-)

[Guest]

Now, if I claimed an invisible, heat-masked, levitating dimension hopping psychic wolverine, visible only to ME lived in those woods, you'd have a case for invoking Sagan... ;-)

Correct, and all manner of such arguments have been proffered by bigfoot proponents. You need look no further than the nearest "why can't they be caught on a game cam" discussion to find them.

[Guest John]

I recently read Sagan's book and whilst not exactly a pager turner I found it fascinating for the most part.

I think where the Dragon scenario would fit with a known species would be if you claimed the presence of a nearby wolverine, yet made all manner excuses why you couldn't obtain concrete evidence (in spite of the fact wolverines unquestionably exist). It then becomes 'what is the difference between a wolverine living near you that can't be reasonably verified and no wolverine living there at all'? Change wolverine for a Purple Martian Wolverine you claim exists but can provide nothing but excuses for the lack of evidence and you might be even closer to the Dragon scenario.

In the case of bigfoot evidence, a quick look through recent threads, and off the top of my head I can recall the following as having excuses made about the lack of bigfoot evidence:

Can't be unambiguously photographed.

Don't get hit and killed by vehicles - despite crossing roads.

Don't die and leave bodies.

Don't leave a trace in the fossil record.

Don't get taken seriously by mainstream science.

Do get shot but leave no verifiable traces.

Physical offered 'remains' prove inconclusive at best (scat, hair, blood etc).

So what is the difference between an unphotographable, non-roadkillable, non-corpse-leaving, no fossil trace remaining, transparent to mainstream science, shot but never recovered leaver of uselessly ambiguous traces and no bigfoot at all?

I don't think for one minute everyone thinks like that, but I think that's where the Sagan scenario fits this subject.

ETA I was more or less thinking about some of Shadowprime's points but Saskeptic posted while I was writing.

Edited May 17, 2011 by John

[Guest Forbig]

So what is the difference between an unphotographable, non-roadkillable, non-corpse-leaving, no fossil trace remaining, transparent to mainstream science, shot but never recovered leaver of uselessly ambiguous traces and no bigfoot at all?

Bigfoot has eyewitnesses I don't know anyone that has ever seen a dragon.

[Guest]

(Feel free to twist the question around, go off on some tangent, etc. I've got a few dozen of these.)

Those are your specialties, Sas, but I'll play along.

Yes, Dr Meldrum got tenure, but only AFTER he was opposed by his so-called "objective" and "scientific" "peers" who tried to deny him that based on his work with BF evidence, proving they were neither objective NOR scientific.

You keep leaving that last part out...but you aren't fooling anyone.