Jump to content
norseman

Bigfoot-special pleading

Recommended Posts

norseman

There seems to be a whole lot of people on here that want to change the fabric of science to NOT ask for physical evidence in biology. Not OK......it's a Pandora's box.

 

Is there a stigma attached to Bigfoot? Absolutely there is. And it's for the very reason DWA always touts. We have a mountain of circumstantial evidence (tracks, pictures, video) and not one single piece of physical proof. A tooth, a finger bone, etc. Which leads people to the conclusion that it's a hoax.

 

Produce physical evidence? And science will run you over. Until then? Not all of the screaming, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, nor the reports, nor the foot casts, etc. Will even make them look your way.

 

To all of the researchers out there, some of which have turned in samples to be turned back contaminated or lost? I'm sorry, truly sorry. All we can do is trudge ahead. :( If it's out there? We need physical proof. 

 

But Im not willing to change science to make it any easier on us for this one particular case. No defacto discovery....... It's gotta be the real deal.

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Who is this "we" you so blithely lump us in with Norse?  What you call the circumstantial evidence (and what I call "evidence") tells me physical remains exist. How could they not, if I trust my conclusions?  BF remains would be certainly interesting, but I could probably predict with some degree of certainty what they look like, and many others could too. I'd be willing to wager as well, there is more than one person who would read this and say, "Well, they look like this here..." Don't think you have access to everything that has ever happened in this world, even though Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Al Gore wanted you to believe that.  

Edited by WSA
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

So your assumption is that physical remains exist? I'd be willing to wager that if you produced said remains? Scientists from many many Biology depts would become your new buddies! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Proponents (non-scientific variety) = own worst enemies, Chapter Seven Million.  DON'T SHOOT ME, OK?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

If your 800 lbs and hairy? No promises....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Sure they would Norse, but then again, they should be my buddies already if they hewed to the line that has been laid out for them by so many others before us.

 

When your choices are only: Vast conspiracy or mirage and a real critter, there is no other choice but to go with the one the evidence supports. Since I see no plausible evidence of vast conspiracy or mirage, I have to take the opposite bet. On doing that, I have also accepted the probability of remains existing. Our own homo-centric world view is all that gets in the way of what should be a very simple conclusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I tire of this conspiracy theory nonsense proponents throw around. Why does it take a conspiracy? If one person in one area of the country participates in a hobby, and someone in some other area of the country also participates in the same hobby, why do you call it a conspiracy? Telling tall tales for fun is a long standing tradition. There does not need to be any coordinated effort to file a faux bigfoot report or spread a campfire story around.  

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
3 minutes ago, WSA said:

I have also accepted the probability of remains existing.

 

Well, if you believe BF actually exists, it would be a given that remains exist. A lot of reasons have been offered why none have been found, but after awhile those reasons start being less and less plausible. 

 

I'm neither convinced that BF exists nor that it doesn't. I keep an open mind despite no solid proof. I have a pet theory that remains have been found but misidentified since BF is not what we think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Conspiracy, as in: Produced with an intent to deceive by large numbers of people with knowledge of that common purpose. The most compelling evidence...videos, films, recordings, track photos, track casts... are either produced with an intent to deceive, or they are real.   

3 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

Well, if you believe BF actually exists, it would be a given that remains exist. A lot of reasons have been offered why none have been found, but after awhile those reasons start being less and less plausible. 

 

I'm neither convinced that BF exists nor that it doesn't. I keep an open mind despite no solid proof. I have a pet theory that remains have been found but misidentified since BF is not what we think it is. 

I think there are multiple explanations, and that is just one of them.  Science has a long list of things predicted, that were unconfirmed for long periods, but which the model insisted would eventually be found, and which were. When BF remains are found and confirmed, it will be just the latest one on the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
24 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Telling tall tales for fun is a long standing tradition. There does not need to be any coordinated effort to file a faux bigfoot report or spread a campfire story around.

 

Agreed, but that it is all tall tales or campfire stories doesn't really answer the question. If that is all there is to it, why do we need to do this as humans? Attention? Most of that isn't positive. Lying is human nature as well. So is being a bit off in the head. Our eyes often deceive us.  I'm reasonable certain these thing account for a bulk of the reports of encounters/sightings, but  I don't think with certainty it can account for all from over recorded history. That's what keep my mind open, the only other possibility is truth. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, WSA said:

I think there are multiple explanations, and that is just one of them. 

 

True and my pet theory is just that, my own pet theory, but it isn't my only one. There's also the possibility they don't actually exist, I'm just as open to that one. 

 

But as we have no known base from which to work from to identify them if they do exist, we could also be misidentifying remains. I mean, if they are anatomically closer to humans than we realize, remains could have been found that were thought to be human, but weren't. I'm not sure that even in this day and age of DNA testing if all remains found undergo that testing. 

Edited by Rockape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
29 minutes ago, WSA said:

Sure they would Norse, but then again, they should be my buddies already if they hewed to the line that has been laid out for them by so many others before us.

 

When your choices are only: Vast conspiracy or mirage and a real critter, there is no other choice but to go with the one the evidence supports. Since I see no plausible evidence of vast conspiracy or mirage, I have to take the opposite bet. On doing that, I have also accepted the probability of remains existing. Our own homo-centric world view is all that gets in the way of what should be a very simple conclusion. 

 

The MYTH is yours to believe or disbelieve......its a free country. I have zero issue with that. Enjoy.

 

But don't belly ache about science not coming to the same conclusion as you. They have told us what they require for this creature to be classified as a real species. Over and over again.

 

Ten million or a hundred million eye witness reports or plaster foot cast DO NOT equal one single finger bone. (See Denisovian find)

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

Agreed, but that it is all tall tales or campfire stories doesn't really answer the question. If that is all there is to it, why do we need to do this as humans? Attention? Most of that isn't positive. Lying is human nature as well. So is being a bit off in the head. Our eyes often deceive us.  I'm reasonable certain these thing account for a bulk of the reports of encounters/sightings, but that I don't think it can account for all from over recorded history. That's what keep my mind open, the only other possibility is truth. 

 

I truly believe, no matter if Bigfoot or Almasty or the Orang Pendak is real today or not. We Homo Sapiens in our history have shared this planet with enough hairy cousins to be on the constant lookout.

 

It's in our DNA.

Here it is in black and white.

 

http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2010/01/smithsonians-formal-reply-letter-to.html

 

 

While most scientists believe the likelihood of the existence of such a creature is small, they keep an open mind as scientists should. One cannot prove anything on the basis of negative evidence, and the only satisfactory proof that an animal fitting the description of the "snowman" exists would be either to capture one and study it or to find undisputed skeletal evidence. Only these kinds of finds would result in the universal recognition of the "snowman" by all scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
21 minutes ago, norseman said:

I truly believe, no matter if Bigfoot or Almasty or the Orang Pendak is real today or not. We Homo Sapiens in our history have shared this planet with enough hairy cousins to be on the constant lookout.

 

Yes, very true. Gigantopithicus alone shows something like what we think BF is did exist at one time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

You may think I care what Science says about BF existing or not Norse, but it couldn't be further from my focus of concern. Really, I have no concerns at all. When you've arrived at a conclusion based on evidence, it is only new and different evidence that can shake that view. I remain open to such, but what I see is more of what led me to my original conclusions. 

 

On the other hand, you are on record as caring a great deal about what science says about it. I'm not against the idea of confirmation you understand....would be great and I'd raise a glass wherever I was to ol' Chuck D whenever it would happen. No, what I'm saying is: We have the capacity to make our own conclusions here, regardless of what others may think, or whatever other evidence we think "should" come along later.  What hasn't happened yet has no relevancy to those conclusions, no matter how many years it might take for it to happen, or ever if it never does.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

And that is fine.

 

Just don't follow DWA's lead and call science "meanie heads" because they require more than you concerning proof. No special pleading......

 

I support your right to explore whatever assumptions or proposed traits about a mythical beast you would like on this forum. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Well, I will agree with DWA that scientists ignore their own tenants and precepts regularly, but in that they are no different from any other discipline or profession that ever was.  Let's just suppose a specimen is collected tomorrow. Is the response from "science" likely to be, "Good thing we held out for all these years, resisting the very idea of BF, and staying way behind on the learning curve" ? Hardly, and that will be a good thing they don't say that. Until the next time they are presented with such a case, when they will fall right back into this trap of their own construction.  

And Norse? There is not much to be said for stonewalling what you can learn by focusing on what you don't.  Perfect evidence being the enemy of good enough? True. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×