Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[Guest DWA]

Can't help it.  It's the company I keep, most of which is pretty **** sure of itself.  Amiright?  DON'T SAY NO.

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, DWA said:

Remember: when the animal is confirmed I was right all along;

 

OK. But until then my post stands.

[Twist]

NO, I'm pretty sure the company your do or do not keep has no effect on your being, you are who you are because you are you !!!!!!! 

[Guest DWA]

And as with everything regarding this topic, ^^^that comes without evidence.

 

Hanging around arrogant people who don't do homework or think about stuff makes me what I am.

 

Here.

[norseman]

 

How is a track any less physical evidence? 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Because it's the negative of physical evidence (the foot) made up of dental resin......that's why.

[Twist]

3 minutes ago, DWA said:

And as with everything regarding this topic, ^^^that comes without evidence.

 

Hanging around arrogant people who don't do homework or think about stuff makes me what I am.

 

Here.

 

So your comments are without evidence??  You are a part of "everything" regarding this topic.

 

Birds of a feather flock together...yet here we ALL are !! I hope you are not claiming to be arrogant, I would never be able to agree with that opinion of you DWA !!!! 

[Guest DWA]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

How is a track any less physical evidence? 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Because it's the negative of physical evidence (the foot) made up of dental resin......that's why.

No. And again we're arguing about a fact.  A thing...made a thing.

 

And in this case, lots of that thing have been made, and subtle earmarks common to a large number of them - subtle earmarks one can touch and feel and see - mark them as not fakes.

6 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

So your comments are without evidence??  You are a part of "everything" regarding this topic.

 

Birds of a feather flock together...yet here we ALL are !! I hope you are not claiming to be arrogant, I would never be able to agree with that opinion of you DWA !!!! 

Good.  Now back on topic.

[Twist]

4 minutes ago, DWA said:

No. And again we're arguing about a fact.  A thing...made a thing.

 

And in this case, lots of that thing have been made, and subtle earmarks common to a large number of them - subtle earmarks one can touch and feel and see - mark them as not fakes.

 

There is not Verifiable, Testable, Repeatable evidence in regards to BF tracks because there is not a Verifiable, Testable, Repeatable physical BF foot to compare it to.  

Edited September 28, 2016 by Twist

[Guest DWA]

As has been discussed on *this very thread:*  Verifiable Testable Repeatable is not the only way science gathers knowledge (see: megamouth shark, coelacanth).

 

It's an obvious fallacy to say that the evidence for something can't be x because we haven't proven it.  How would we ever prove anything?

 

That second sentence I wrote says, in terms recognizable to any honest scientist:

 

We need to find out what is making these, because it's outlandish to accept hoaxers without proof. 

 

Where is the Verifiable Testable Repeatable that all sasquatch tracks are faked? That all sightings are hooey?

 

Exactly.   Thanks for that!

Edited September 28, 2016 by DWA

[norseman]

Can you test the dental resin to make sure it's not a fake track? Let me help you out.....NO.

 

Can you test DNA in skin, hair, scat or a foot to make sure its not a fake? Ummm...YA!

 

Thats because it's called PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It's a piece of the animal.

 

FACT: Dental resin is not a physical piece of the animal.....neither are John Bindernagel books....bell curves.......grainy photos.......howls, wood knocks, the PGF or flying saucers. 

 

Sorry.

 

 

[Twist]

18 minutes ago, DWA said:

As has been discussed on *this very thread:*  Verifiable Testable Repeatable is not the only way science gathers knowledge (see: megamouth shark, coelacanth).

 

It's an obvious fallacy to say that the evidence for something can't be x because we haven't proven it.  How would we ever prove anything?

 

That second sentence I wrote says, in terms recognizable to any honest scientist:

 

We need to find out what is making these, because it's outlandish to accept hoaxers without proof. 

 

Where is the Verifiable Testable Repeatable that all sasquatch tracks are faked? That all sightings are hooey?

 

Exactly.   Thanks for that!

 

No one said you need the "V T R" to gather knowledge.  BUT you should have it to state a definitive stance in a scientific matter in regards to a living, breathing, species that is walking on the N. American continent as we speak, not to mention in the "supposed range" of the evidence you swear by DWA, and of the size of creature in the evidence you swear by.  

[hiflier]

Besides Megamouth shark is in the fossil record. Coelacanth is in the fossil record and eight other thought to be extinct species that.....now aren't. Oh, I understand completely what you are saying so don't worry. The question that remains though is do you understand what I'm saying. Sasquatch so far has no proved fossil record. Outside of speculation of course. AGAIN, I'm not saying they don't exist. I AM sying that at this point in time, as Norseman pointed out, one does need the foot in the footprint. Otherwise we can speculate til the cows come home and it proves nothing. If "something" made all those prints then we ain't doing so well finding it. And nature is saying it jumped into this world in the last couple of hundred years or so. We need more.

Edited September 28, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

31 minutes ago, norseman said:

Can you test the dental resin to make sure it's not a fake track? Let me help you out.....NO.

 

Can you test DNA in skin, hair, scat or a foot to make sure its not a fake? Ummm...YA!

 

Thats because it's called PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It's a piece of the animal.

 

FACT: Dental resin is not a physical piece of the animal.....neither are John Bindernagel books....bell curves.......grainy photos.......howls, wood knocks, the PGF or flying saucers. 

 

Sorry.

 

 

I am not sure why you are arguing this with me.  Let me refer you to Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum.

 

10 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

No one said you need the "V T R" to gather knowledge.  BUT you should have it to state a definitive stance in a scientific matter in regards to a living, breathing, species that is walking on the N. American continent as we speak, not to mention in the "supposed range" of the evidence you swear by DWA, and of the size of creature in the evidence you swear by.  

No. You don't need it to say "we got enough here to tell us there's an animal running around we don't know about."  We didn't use V T R to confirm the gorilla.  We used ...less evidence than we have for sasquatch.  By.A.Lot.

 

As is being discussed on *this very thread*, proof is for the ignorant, not for those who are paying attention.  Bindernagel - hope it's obvious why I'm taking him over you - says this is a scientific discovery that the mainstream just hasn't gotten around to acknowledging yet.  That means:  other than taxonomy and followup research to establish range, life cycle, habits, etc., we're done here. There's an animal.  Now let's get the rest of the data.

9 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Besides Megamouth shark is in the fossil record. Coelacanth is in the fossil record and eight other thought to be extinct species that.....aren't. Oh, I understand completely what you are saying so don't worry. The question that remains though is do you understand what I'm saying. Sasquatch so far has no proved fossil record. Outside of speculation of course.

As discussed many times here:  the fossil record means nothing in terms of what people are seeing now.  Megamouth and coelacanth were nothing but fossils...until scientists literally tripped over living (well, dead but in the flesh) ones.

 

We don't know enough about sasquatch to do more than speculate about fossil lineage.  Which is why I'd like the mainstream to finally ask itself why people like Schaller Mionczynski Krantz Meldrum and Goodall are so sure there's something to look at here.

Edited September 28, 2016 by DWA

[hiflier]

3 minutes ago, DWA said:

As is being discussed on *this very thread*, proof is for the ignorant

 

Hey, DWA. Then why don't you just tell me I'm ignorant to my face instead of some sneaky sideways cuff?

[Guest DWA]

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

 

Hey, DWA. Then why don't you just tell me I'm ignorant to my face instead of some sneaky sideways cuff?

"Ignorant" is in the technical sense of "you weren't there for all my research and think I'm all wet."  "Ignorant" counts people like, say, astronomers, who just trust what biologists tell them about developments in their field (and vice versa).  See why I don't go long form?