Sasquatchery Grouping

[gigantor]

4 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

Mea Culpa, Gigantor.

 

No need to apologize, I'm not offended at all.

 

We all have our points of view, I was just pointing out you left out a few categories in your original post. A dialogue is necessary for the meeting of the minds...  and I think we've some progress.

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 0:13 AM, gigantor said:

^^^ I don't want to be ignorant, please tell me how I can be enlightened. What should I do to overcome my ignorance.

 

I'm willing to overcome it, please help me!

 

Haha.   You have to believe those who would deceive you into believing in mythical beasts .Dismissing the evidence or lack there of in which you have already studied  and reached your own conclusions. That in itself is a no no.

Just believe. You can do it. 

[WSA]

^^^As a Nation (U.S. that is) we might be waking up to the factual vacuum created by the whole idea of false equivalency. This is the pernicious idea that any fact stated is balanced out by the mere statement to the contrary. There is no end to the mischief this creates and it sustains an atmosphere of "anything goes, and nothing matters." If I were to say, "The sun rises in the East, and sets in the West" and your reply is NUH-UHHH!!!, and both "views" are proposed as having equal legitimacy, we are four-square in the upside-down world of the false equivalency.   

 

So....to bring it around to the topic at hand...if I say to you , "Look, there are gigantic footprints that were obviously made by something big, with a lot of mass, and  with a preternaturally long stride", and your reply on looking at them is: "No they weren't, because the animal you reference is mythical"? One of us has factual issues. It would not be me.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑↑

Nice post. Of course where the sun sets and rises has nothing to do with the creatures existence or not.

I wont debate it. Just suffice to say without a specimen or real DNA . Questionable and not  proven evidence the creature remains in the mythical section until perhaps in our lifetime they become documented .

We  can hope, dream and speculate and enjoy the mystery. I certainly will.

[WSA]

But PG,  do you think dismissing something that leaves footprints, stacks up dead trees and makes sounds  as "mythical" might just be getting in the way of confirmation?  (I've deliberately tossed out the sighting reports, because I will agree: Mythical animals get "seen", all the time. I will spare you my position as to why BF sighting reports have the congruency of actual wildlife sightings) 

 

So, there is this physical evidence.  It is no less physical, or real, because we lack the confirmation of what is causing it. The only point that matters is we have no other satisfactory explanation. No, really, there isn't one. I came to this Forum years ago thinking somebody surely had the theory that would explain all this to me and I could move on to other things. A Unified Theory of Sasquatch Debunking, if you will. Instead, what I saw on display was the opponents'  a la carte menu of hackneyed and tread worn half-baked responses that had no one-size-fits-all applicability that you'd think could be applied if this were such an easy problem to solve. I've wracked my brain trying to devise explanations of my own that fit my understanding of the accepted model for the natural world and predicted human nature, and I just have come up empty handed.  I'm certainly not the first to arrive at this point either, by a wide margin.

 

Well, so in the end many people here did have  a plausible explanation for it, and they were all proponents.  The rejoinder to their theory continues to be, only: MYTHICAL!!!  That is exactly what I mean by the perniciousness  of the false equivalency.  It is not serving us well, at all.  

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I am not saying throw out the  evidence. It does have  purpose.  It is an opening for further study , It is not proof in its self.

It provides hope and places that need to be examined and studied. What it is not is proof positive.

Based on the mythical reputation of the creature and many  stories, hoaxers and even the exploitation in the commercial world.

Science can only accept a specimen to prove existence and document as a real species.

I know you don't  like the mythical tag, but until such time as real proof in the form I have said and many others have said as well.

The creature remains mythical.

[WSA]

PG, you skirt the point still. It is only this: When your putative mythical animal leaves footprints, stacks up trees, and makes noises, and the only explanation you have (still) is, "Nothing here to see, because it is just mythical?"  You are planted squarely across the threshold of the same scientific confirmation, the lack of which you cite as your reason for skepticism. As for falling back on the hackneyed "Evidence is not proof" non-explanation?  As a statement of the obvious, it has no equal.

 

Of maybe I just don't understand your use of the term "mythical."  Do you use it the sense of something historically documented, but not proven? (In which case I agree with you), or is it used in the sense of something imaginary, made-up and not real? (In which case I don't) I presumed you meant the second usage, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[norseman]

As a type specimen proponent I do see the ISF mindset folly that since the creature is not proven? It's a myth. Therefore all evidence associated with the myth? Is a hoax.

 

I think unfortunately someday our descendants will have complete control of this planet. Every ant, every blade of grass will probably be counted and inserted with a gps transponder. But until that day comes we as a civilization have not catalogued every living entity on earth. I believe there are things yet to be discovered...some small, some big. We still have undiscovered tribes of humans living as they have for milenia on our last remote places on Earth.

 

And Sasquatch isn't that weird in the larger scheme of things. No where does it violate any laws of nature or evolution, and it could possibly be represented in the fossil record in some parts of the world. It's not a three headed fire breathing Hydra by any means.

 

So boiled down to brass tacks? It's probably never going to stop being a myth, unless people go look for themselves. And if it's all a hoax? Why bother?

[Patterson-Gimlin]

4 hours ago, WSA said:

PG, you skirt the point still. It is only this: When your putative mythical animal leaves footprints, stacks up trees, and makes noises, and the only explanation you have (still) is, "Nothing here to see, because it is just mythical?"  You are planted squarely across the threshold of the same scientific confirmation, the lack of which you cite as your reason for skepticism. As for falling back on the hackneyed "Evidence is not proof" non-explanation?  As a statement of the obvious, it has no equal.

 

Of maybe I just don't understand your use of the term "mythical."  Do you use it the sense of something historically documented, but not proven? (In which case I agree with you), or is it used in the sense of something imaginary, made-up and not real? (In which case I don't) I presumed you meant the second usage, but correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I think you probably don't understand my point.  Footprints  can easily be faked including dermal ridges ,crippled  individuals, and others. Machines and men can stack trees.

That is not even what I was referring to . Not mythical because of not being documented. As Norse said there are tribes and many species yet to be documented . Many are rather frequently. Most are quite small and lack  the intelligence to remain hidden.

None are over 7 foot tall.  Again, that is not why I refer to them as mythical . These creatures have no hoopla, campfire stories, parades , conventions, and market value.    The Sasquatch creature does have all of this . Therefore reaching icon status with mythical status. To be accepted from myth to reality. The creature needs to be measured and examined  scientifically.

I am a big fan of the Patterson film. It is my hope that one day for that to be enhanced with  a body on a slab. Of course I am reasonably convinced that will never happen  for the simple reason in my personal opinion the creature most likely does not exist .

Edited September 27, 2016 by Patterson-Gimlin

[WSA]

PG, that duplicity of man is not something I discount, ever. Still, there is a myth afoot here, I grant you. It is the myth of the omnipotent hoaxer. At least BF has its own iconography, history and lore to legitimize it (and centuries of natural history and scientific theory to quite plausibly explain it). As for the O.H., whoever he/they may be? His/their apologists offer nothing except the usual a la carte menu of clichéd implausibility, and the solid absence of physical evidence like that offered to the contrary. I'm not taking a jab at you personally, but there is a whole contingent of people out there that find satisfaction in this view. (I think their own comfort they find in this pat explanation is not to be discounted either)      

 

         

[Guest DWA]

7 hours ago, WSA said:

But PG,  do you think dismissing something that leaves footprints, stacks up dead trees and makes sounds  as "mythical" might just be getting in the way of confirmation?  (I've deliberately tossed out the sighting reports, because I will agree: Mythical animals get "seen", all the time. I will spare you my position as to why BF sighting reports have the congruency of actual wildlife sightings) 

Well, I've talked about them time and again here, and I don't think they're tossable.  (And I know your mind on their consistency and real-world feel.)  But the cool thing about it? You could toss them, out of hand, and you'd still have the footprints.  (Which Krantz said, in so many words, were proof *even if no sighting reports had ever occurred.*) You could toss both, and you'd still have PG, for which the only reasonable explanations (quick primer: theories backed by evidence) have come from proponents.  The only things, other than this, we are aware of for which such a slam-dunk pattern exists are, wait for it, things we have confirmed as real.
 

7 hours ago, WSA said:

 

Well, so in the end many people here did have  a plausible explanation for it, and they were all proponents.  The rejoinder to their theory continues to be, only: MYTHICAL!!!  That is exactly what I mean by the perniciousness  of the false equivalency.  It is not serving us well, at all.  

Right. When there is no explanation for a phenomenon which the society accepts THERE IS NO EXPLANATION.  (There is one, and it's the only reasonable one; just the society doesn't accept it yet.)  One can't state a conclusion (MYTHICAL!!!) for which no evidence exists.  If you can point me to unicorn evidence, I'm all ears.  But don't try telling me sasquatch is in that league.  It's demonstrably factually and you must accept it because science tells you to not.  "Hominid primates" is more the league it's in.

 

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am not saying throw out the  evidence. It does have  purpose.  It is an opening for further study , It is not proof in its self.

Great.  Then you can't call it MYTHICAL.  You just can't.  That's a conclusion backed by no evidence and thus a non sequitur.

 

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

It provides hope and places that need to be examined and studied. What it is not is proof positive.

Great.  Then you can't call etc.  And you can't pronounce sentence until that work is done, which hasn't even fairly started yet.

 

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Based on the mythical reputation of the creature and many  stories, hoaxers and even the exploitation in the commercial world.

They mean nothing, as I have pointed out many times here.  The live evidence stands, as a body, completely separate and apart from all that.

 

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Science can only accept a specimen to prove existence and document as a real species.

And until then the verdict is not MYTHICAL but INCONCLUSIVE (to those who haven't examined the evidence, that is).

 

7 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I know you don't  like the mythical tag, but until such time as real proof in the form I have said and many others have said as well.

The creature remains mythical.

As I have thoroughly demonstrated, no.