Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots? (2)

[FarArcher]

52 minutes ago, Starling said:

Incorrect. This is just a small part of my argument; the part that wishes to credit some eye witness reports with genuine sincerity as I'm sure they exist. My wider conviction is that everyone else is just playing fantasy role games for  as many reasons as there are stars in the sky. I've never understood why just because an individual is considered a 'credible' witness they're not actually open to a vast spectrum of Walter Mitty-style behaviour. To use your analogy the reason the roads are as safe as they are is because millions of road users go about their driving with due care and attention. But a big part of that is drivers being constantly aware that statistically there is always going  to be some drivers who aren't at any given moment. You would have us believe that not worrying about the exceptions is the rule on the highway when it definitely is not. This is called simple logic and it is not on your side.

 

 

What in the Wild, Wild, World of Sports are you talking about?

 

You have indicated that the bulk of observations of this BF are mistaken.  For hundreds of years?  Thousands of years?  On every continent by people with every background and cultural difference possible?  So the ignorant farmer/sheepherder who made his observation before television and movies were invented - and wasn't a student of Western literature - he has a Walter Mitty complex?  

 

Another millennial.  God help us.

 

Yeah, there's some delusion and mistaken observations going on - but it's all on your end.

 

What contrived, nano-deep arrogance is required to know better than the thousands and thousands of people over the millennia who've actually witnessed these things - and you got your drawers in a bunch because - you haven't?

 

Ho.  Li.  Crap.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

51 minutes ago, dmaker said:

That is about the weakest reason to think bigfoot is real.

 

If you can determine through logic that people have in fact seen it, then wouldn't it be sufficient reason?

[dmaker]

51 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

If you can determine through logic that people have in fact seen it

That is not possible. Might as well ask me if you could determine the truth through reading tea leaves.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

You can determine the truth of an alleged encounter through psychoanalysis and statistics. You can do it through tea leaves as well, and even get it right, but in that case it won't be logical.

[dmaker]

32 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

You can determine the truth of an alleged encounter through psychoanalysis and statistics.

Nope

 

I will grant you that you can possibly use psychoanalysis techniques to look for indicators of truth or false, but you cannot with absolute certainty determine one or the other. 

 

To say otherwise is just logically, and practically, wrong. You keep saying this yet you continue to fail in providing controls for people that truly believe their claim, even when that claim is demonstrably false. 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by dmaker

[7.62]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

That is about the weakest reason to think bigfoot is real.

Do you believe everyone here is just making it up or mistaken in what they saw?

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

I will grant you that you can possibly use psychoanalysis techniques to look for indicators of truth or false, but you cannot with absolute certainty determine one or the other.

 

What theory in science is ever determined to be true with absolute certainty? Every now and then you admit to understanding this concept (when it's in your favor), yet contradict it with posts like the one above when it comes to an opposing theory.

 

Long story short: Just like how one can determine non-existence without absolute proof, one can determine the legitimacy of reports as well. Look around in the different fields of scientific study and you'll see accepted theories that don't have a smoking gun (e.g. black holes, evolution). 

Proof doesn't even exist in scientific study.

[dmaker]

36 minutes ago, 7.62 said:

Do you believe everyone here is just making it up or mistaken in what they saw?

Of course, I do. That sounds harsh, but given the current state of lack of evidence, I don't think bigfoot exists as a live animal. So, the only answer I can possibly have for you, is yes.

 

It's not meant to be an insult. Just my objective opinion. 

 

17 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

 

What theory in science is ever determined to be true with absolute certainty? Every now and then you admit to understanding this concept (when it's in your favor), yet contradict it with posts like the one above when it comes to an opposing theory.

 

Long story short: Just like how one can determine non-existence without absolute proof, one can determine the legitimacy of reports as well. Look around in the different fields of scientific study and you'll see accepted theories that don't have a smoking gun (e.g. black holes, evolution). 

Proof doesn't even exist in scientific study.

Biology is not a science that must rely on observation or prediction, alone. It is one of the simplest of the sciences when it comes to species confirmation. You either have proof of the animal, or you do not. 

 

Bigfoot exists, or it does not. If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence. If it does not exist, our grandchildren will be having this same conversation.

 

The only thing that will prove this animal is DNA or a piece of one, or a body on a slab. No amount of psychoanlysis or anecdote trumping up, or anything else will make one whit of difference. 

 

Biology is clear. Produce the animal, or a piece of one, or nothing else matters. With my own personal provision that I think that if anyone were to provide clear, HD footage of one, that would move the needle in favor of belief. While not proof, it would stimulate some serious conversation. And I mean crystal clear video, not the usual blurry, far away, crappy bigfoot videos. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Bigfoot exists, or it does not. If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence. If it does not exist, our grandchildren will be having this same conversation.

 

That is about as objective as it gets

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

 

 

18 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Of course, I do. That sounds harsh, but given the current state of lack of evidence, I don't think bigfoot exists as a live animal. So, the only answer I can possibly have for you, is yes.

 

It's not meant to be an insult. Just my objective opinion. 

 

Biology is not a science that must rely on observation or prediction, alone. It is one of the simplest of the sciences when it comes to species confirmation. You either have proof of the animal, or you do not. 

 

Bigfoot exists, or it does not. If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence. If it does not exist, our grandchildren will be having this same conversation.

 

The only thing that will prove this animal is DNA or a piece of one, or a body on a slab. No amount of psychoanlysis or anecdote trumping up, or anything else will make one whit of difference. 

 

Biology is clear. Produce the animal, or a piece of one, or nothing else matters. With my own personal provision that I think that if anyone were to provide clear, HD footage of one, that would move the needle in favor of belief. While not proof, it would stimulate some serious conversation. And I mean crystal clear video, not the usual blurry, far away, crappy bigfoot videos. 

 

That's off from the point I'm trying to make. What I'm saying is that you don't need a smoking gun to determine if a witness is telling the truth.

 

As for mainstream science, they'll have to be able to replicate the observations (e.g. have their own visual encounters), otherwise. they won't accept any scientific paper on this subject. This becomes problematic in instances like this where they can't replicate any of the observations.

 

"If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence."

 

Not necessarily. You're filling in the blanks with a pre-conceived notion that may very well turn out to be wrong.

[dmaker]

OS, no offence, but you think aliens created bigfoot. Sure, that is your prerogative to believe that, and I have no problem with you exercising that prerogative, but I simply cannot take anyone seriously that promotes a theory such as that. I find it difficult to have a serious conversation with you. Your over arching theory that aliens created bigfoot just taints the whole discussion for me. As such, I have to put you on ignore. Sorry.

 

[7.62]

30 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Of course, I do. That sounds harsh, but given the current state of lack of evidence, I don't think bigfoot exists as a live animal. So, the only answer I can possibly have for you, is yes.

 

It's not meant to be an insult. Just my objective opinion. 

 

Biology is not a science that must rely on observation or prediction, alone. It is one of the simplest of the sciences when it comes to species confirmation. You either have proof of the animal, or you do not. 

 

Bigfoot exists, or it does not. If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence. If it does not exist, our grandchildren will be having this same conversation.

 

The only thing that will prove this animal is DNA or a piece of one, or a body on a slab. No amount of psychoanlysis or anecdote trumping up, or anything else will make one whit of difference. 

 

Biology is clear. Produce the animal, or a piece of one, or nothing else matters. With my own personal provision that I think that if anyone were to provide clear, HD footage of one, that would move the needle in favor of belief. While not proof, it would stimulate some serious conversation. And I mean crystal clear video, not the usual blurry, far away, crappy bigfoot videos. 

 

 

I've said before that a hair sample with DNA  in my humble opinion won't convince everyone in the scientific community because there's always going to be variables even with DNA

that we haven't classified before . If you think about it the scientific community has classified and documented many species of fish without ever having a body of one.

Just videos of deep sea fish that never see the light of day.

 

My belief is that just a HD clear video of one that can't be disputed as a fake would be enough .  If the animal is real and I believe it is we don't need a body or a piece of one.

That's the biggest problem . Every time we see a video of one it's easy to call it a fake because it's grainy or far away  etc..

 

When we watch a high quality nature video made by National Geographic the colors and the vivid close up  of the animals they are filming is amazing .

 

In my humble opinion that would do it. 

 

[Twist]

I agree, a clear hd video would pretty much clear it up for me personally.  It will at least result in more serious boots on the ground by scientist imo.

[7.62]

14 minutes ago, Twist said:

I agree, a clear hd video would pretty much clear it up for me personally.  It will at least result in more serious boots on the ground by scientist imo.

Yup

and like I said it's already a proven and world wide accepted practice  in marine  biology

[Twist]

It's easier to accept odd creatures in the oceans given the depths and lack of exploration.  The idea of an 8' primate potentially living along side us all this time is disturbing if true to some. Lol