This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Guest]

I am trying to learn the different logical fallacies used as tools to dilute arguments. The OP pointed out an area that they believe can hide a population of Bigfoots and you bring up another area that you believe can't rather than address his point. Is this a strawman or a red herring?

Yeah, could be either depending on how you read the OP and how you read Saskeptics response, but you're on the right track .

[Guest]

I see huntster beat me to it.

[Guest]

Hold on a second folks.

Too Risky presents in the opening post a description of the beautiful and rugged wilderness of the Cascades and includes the statement "This is why a body has never been found." I agree: it would be very difficult to find a bigfoot body in such an expansive wilderness. But bigfoot is by no means confined to the Cascades or to wilderness areas anywhere. Therefore, the rugged terrain of the Cascades has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of finding a body in other habitats and regions where such creatures are purported to occur.

If Too Risky had stated "This is why a bigfoot body has never been found in the Cascades" then yes, my comment would have been a strawman argument - and I wouldn't have written it.

I find these accusations that I post dishonestly most unseemly - and more to the point, inaccurate. Huntster you of all people should understand that I'm not in the business of stooping to such nonsense to advance a point.

[Guest]

I think he meant in the Cascades (as he stated, I can't speak for others or other places areas), and that's why I wrote, "...depending on how you read the OP and how you read Saskeptics response..." I don't think anyone was saying you were being dishonest, at least I wasn't saying that.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Ace

[Drew]

I think he meant in the Cascades (as he stated, I can't speak for others or other places areas), and that's why I wrote, "...depending on how you read the OP and how you read Saskeptics response..." I don't think anyone was saying you were being dishonest, at least I wasn't saying that.

Obviously, the topic says "Why we can't find a body here in Wa. state"

Saskeptic's point can be applied here as well.

Wow, the Cascades are rugged and beautiful, but why can't we get a specimen from the not-so-rugged areas of Washington?

i.e. the Rest Areas along the highways, or the ones on the outskirts of Seattle, or even around the hamlet of Yakima?

Just because he used other locations, his point is still valid.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Drew

[Guest]

I'm not sure what you're arguing about Drew. You agree the OP was about the Cascades? You're right, Saskeptics point could be applied here, there, anywhere, but it would still have been a strawman argument ("If Too Risky had stated "This is why a bigfoot body has never been found in the Cascades" then yes, my comment would have been a strawman argument - and I wouldn't have written it."). If the OP states this is why a body has never been found in the Cascades (which I think the OP implied), then anything other than addressing a body in the Cascades is a fallacious argument. Doesn't really matter much I guess, because a body could certainly have been found by someone at sometime in the rugged and beautiful Cascades. Bodies should be strewn throughout the Cascades and it's likely at some point a logger would have kicked a bone or two.

[Guest]

Also, I wrote, "...depending on how you read the OP and how you read Saskeptics response..." because someone may have read it differently than I read the post. I read it to mean a body in the Cascades and that the original poster was not speaking for others and other areas in the US.

[Drew]

I'm not sure what you're arguing about Drew. You agree the OP was about the Cascades? You're right, Saskeptics point could be applied here, there, anywhere, but it would still have been a strawman argument ("If Too Risky had stated "This is why a bigfoot body has never been found in the Cascades" then yes, my comment would have been a strawman argument - and I wouldn't have written it."). If the OP states this is why a body has never been found in the Cascades (which I think the OP implied), then anything other than addressing a body in the Cascades is a fallacious argument. Doesn't really matter much I guess, because a body could certainly have been found by someone at sometime in the rugged and beautiful Cascades. Bodies should be strewn throughout the Cascades and it's likely at some point a logger would have kicked a bone or two.

The title of the thread is "WHY WE CAN'T FIND A BODY HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE"

It then showed a video of the Cascade mountain range.

If you want an argument fallacy, title a thread "WHY WE CAN'T FIND A BODY HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE" and then show a video of the Cascades, and say 'we can't find a body in Washington, because the terrain is too rugged, see this video.' Of course Saskeptic knows that Washington is not ALL mountains and rugged terrain, basically saying, 'your video of the Cascades does not explain why we don't find them in less treacherous areas, but it sure explains why we can't find them in the Cascades'

[indiefoot]

Saskeptic, I didn't call you dishonest the same way you didn't use a strawman fallacy. We can say it but we would both be using weasle words.

The guy went out and got some video to make his point. That took effort and I appreciate him sharing it with us. Give him his due.

BTW, Rock, your right, I think I saw 20-30 guys out there measuring trees with a tape measure. A couple of them were just hugging the **** things though.

[Guest TooRisky]

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

Well Saskeptic to answer your question it does not change any chances... Ya see I was speaking to the present and the past, not predicting the future... All I was stating is that a body has never been found anywhere and giving the partial reason why, here in my neck of the woods... Simply stating the obvious truth

Basic knowledge?

And Too Risky, if I may, the answer to the question directed at you is, "On a typical day, no one." At least that same camera pan here in the Sierras would yield that answer. You spend enough time in the woods, and you realise that there aren't very many people that spend much time in the woods.

Norcallogger on a typical day way back into the forest i may come across a truck exploring and taking in the shear beauty as I... In the winter there is no way to get back into these areas due to snow and gates closing off area's to save the silly humans from them selves... In summer during the weekends ya will find some of the more adventurous souls camping in the deep interior... now as far as people going cross country through this forest say from ridge to ridge breaking trail, wow I don't think I have ever met anyone that I can think of that has done that, but am sure some have but few and far between... And lastly the foresters, we have not had any logging in this area since I think the 1980's... They are working like 20 miles from here and have no plans as far as I know to log in here in the near future... So not many people at all go back into the deeper interior forests and generally stay in the lower elevations to say camp or picnic along the many glacial creeks leading down to the rivers going to Puget Sound and out to the Pacific...

[Guest]

Are you referring to my post?

I think you must be because your lack of knowledge about timber cruising and road building is evident in another thread where you are making the same errors.

I said nothing about every single mile being explored. Get your facts straight!

Lets try a basic knowledge test so you can discover where your deficiencies and strengths lay.

Do you know how a forested area is cruised for timber from the ground? Do you think somebody just wanders around on the trails counting and measuring trees?

Do you know what a baseline is?

How about a cruise plot?

Do you know anything about laying out a road?

Before airplanes and helicopters were invented - how do you think railroads, roads, and borders came into physical existence. Was it magic or surveying?

Do you think that surveyors only follow trails?

Do you think that timber cruisers only follow trails?

Do you know how to use a compass for land navigation?

Good luck!

None of which in any way shape or form supports your specious claim that the mere presence of a person or group of persons passing through an area effectively "explores" that area or tells them anything whatsoever about the area outside of their perceptual range.

[Guest]

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

There are places in those states every bit as untravelled and remote as anything in the PNW.

[Guest]

The title of the thread is "WHY WE CAN'T FIND A BODY HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE"

It then showed a video of the Cascade mountain range.

If you want an argument fallacy, title a thread "WHY WE CAN'T FIND A BODY HERE IN WASHINGTON STATE" and then show a video of the Cascades, and say 'we can't find a body in Washington, because the terrain is too rugged, see this video.' Of course Saskeptic knows that Washington is not ALL mountains and rugged terrain, basically saying, 'your video of the Cascades does not explain why we don't find them in less treacherous areas, but it sure explains why we can't find them in the Cascades'

I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere, and for that, thank you.

[Huntster]

Hold on a second folks.

Too Risky presents in the opening post a description of the beautiful and rugged wilderness of the Cascades and includes the statement "This is why a body has never been found." I agree: it would be very difficult to find a bigfoot body in such an expansive wilderness. But bigfoot is by no means confined to the Cascades or to wilderness areas anywhere. Therefore, the rugged terrain of the Cascades has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of finding a body in other habitats and regions where such creatures are purported to occur.

"Purported to occur" and "occur" are clearly two different things, aren't they? Glickman's "Group A" and "Group B" clusters and his theory about them, which I accept, is a valid reason to discard sasquatches dancing about in the Great Plains (if not the simple recognition that the obviously close relatives of a sasquatch like chimps, gorillas, and orangs all live in dense, wet forests). This would fit with report densities and histories. Of course, as a scientist familiar enough with sasquatchery to be lecturing wildlife professionals on the subject, you're familiar with and understand that, right?

If Too Risky had stated "This is why a bigfoot body has never been found in the Cascades" then yes, my comment would have been a strawman argument - and I wouldn't have written it.

I find these accusations that I post dishonestly most unseemly - and more to the point, inaccurate. Huntster you of all people should understand that I'm not in the business of stooping to such nonsense to advance a point.

First of all, I don't believe that your post was "dishonest" (another red herring? Maybe this is done without realizing it?). Strawmen and red herrings are not dishonest. They're meaningless, diversionary, common in life today, and recognizable a mile away (to some of us, anyway), but I don't consider them "dishonest".

Questions:

1) Sir, do you believe at all that sasquatches exist?

2) Sir, either way, do you believe that the Great Plains would be logical habitat for such a creature?

3) Sir, if they possibly exist, would you say that the Pacific Northwest, or even other areas with high precipitation and dense forest, would be a more likely habitat for such creatures?

4) Sir, are you aware that the report density/human population ratio of the PNW and the Great Plains clearly show an exponentially greater sighting/report density in the PNW?

If you can please answer those questions, then I will better be able to "understand that you're not in the business of stooping to such nonsense to advance a point". At this point, no, I'm not so sure.

And, yes, I'm quite confident that you will answer them honestly.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

Wow, the Cascades are rugged and beautiful, but why can't we get a specimen from the not-so-rugged areas of Washington?

Because there are no specimens to obtain in the not-so-rugged areas of Washington, and precious few in the rugged areas, to boot?

Just because he used other locations, his point is still valid.

If so, then why can't we find the remains of an African elephant near the hamlet of Yakima?

Just because I used another species, my point (which is avoided like the plague) is still valid..............