Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 What? You say the answer are there and yet there is no proof. Seems if you've been studying from the same text for so long without results that it's time to throw away that book and write your own. - The Gospel of Ken, Chapter 1, verse 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 OK, if you're not willing to do the sledding. Which makes you no better than any of the scientists who just aren't paying attention to this and show it by what they say about it. As WSA says. I don't care what all your degrees are in. I tune you out if you show me you aren't tackling the evidence. Proof, once again, is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. We'd have it, if the people we delegate to get it were paying attention. Which they are not. I'm satisfied. But I've read the book. Their reaction I don't care about...because they haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 But you claim all the answers are in there, and yet still no proof. I can only surmise that you have some alternative reason for not wanting the myth to become reality, or you're afraid to find your own path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 You know, you keep on saying that "no proof" thing like it means anything. You are wasting a lot of time here that you could spend getting where such as WSA and I are on this. Why does everyone act as if I am The Man With The Keys To The Kingdom? Look, anyone who is doing that is the one guilty of not knowing his path. Mine is the path of knowledge, dude, not idle talk. And I know what's up here, and you might want to. Nothing else I need to do. Much work for you, however. Might want to get on it. Anyone who keeps telling other people to prove this needs to get off his duff. I am precisely where I want to be. Sounds as if you are not. You wanna get where I am? Do some studying, of the evidence. Stop continuing to tell those who are read up what they need to do. They have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest keninsc Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Oh trust me, I know you have the keys to nothing, because nothing is what we have in terms of evidence. I already came to the conclusion that you will not be the person who comes up with any real evidence, so not to worry. However, if I do need to ask a question on those field report databases I'll call you up first, not problem. Also, if you are going to claim it then you need to own it, don't dance away then come back and draw it like a knife in fight. By the way? Who is this "they" and what have they done? ....and I have already told you I hope to never be where you are figuratively or literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 No doubt about it. The sighting report database is crucial reading for anyone who wants to seriously address this mystery. If we can raise and educate a generation of children to develop the critical reading skills necessary to receive the signal out of that noise, we've accomplished much. Thing is too, there is lots and lots of signal there. No surprise, I'm with DWA on that point. If I were debating this point in a public forum I would merely print out every report every filed and whack them down on the podium (which would probably break) and say, "Address these....one at a time please." So far, none here in opposition have done more than wave a hand at them all, collectively. It won't go away by doing that, but if it makes you feel any better, fine. It is a hell of a lot of work to engage with these reports, on either side of the question. I've yet to meet an opponent here who is willing to burn the calories to get educated in that regard. So, just like I stop reading any criticism by anyone who admits in the first line that they haven't yet read/seen the book/film/opinion piece, I skip their opinions too. They just don't matter. I have the sneaking suspicion though that they avoid doing it because it raises some very uncomfortable doubts that they don't have the resolve to address. Best to not look under the bed, don't you know? Your tactic of trying to point to every claimed encounter wouldn't work. It hasn't worked in this public forum and never will since, as you know, the reports aren't evidence. Repeatedly braying otherwise hasn't gotten sassy any closer to classification. Debating anecdotal reports will never provide proof. Proof will come with dissection. It isn't critical reading skills that are important - it's critical thinking skills. It wasn't reading fairy tales as children that was important - the important part was developing critical thinking skills and learning important life lessons. When believers will believe sassy reports but not UFO reports, Chupacabra reports, Fairy reports, Dogmen reports or Skinwalker reports critical thinking should make you wonder why not? When folks will adamantly point to First Nation tribal lore as evidence of sassy but refuse to believe in Skinwalkers critical thinking should make you question the difference. When members here won't answer whether or not they would accept being banned from this forum solely on the basis of an anonymous claim of hoaxing or whether they would object to their child being suspended from school on the basis of an anonymous report critical thinking will provide the answer as to why they won't answer and why they don't truly believe anonymous reports. When a member who claims to have read more info about sassy than anyone else here lies and states that calling 911 won't get a response if sassy is involved critical thinking will provide an answer as to why they resorted to lying. Reading fairy tales and looking under the bed just leads to monsters if you don't apply critical thinking. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Psst: DWA. Take a close look at the above posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 1975 washington environmental atlas army corps of engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 So, I guess we can take that as a "I've not bothered to read them" response from you Bill? Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zman1967 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I for one would like to see this thread back on topic instead of the bickering back and forth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) Oh trust me, I know you have the keys to nothing, because nothing is what we have in terms of evidence. I already came to the conclusion that you will not be the person who comes up with any real evidence, so not to worry. However, if I do need to ask a question on those field report databases I'll call you up first, not problem. Also, if you are going to claim it then you need to own it, don't dance away then come back and draw it like a knife in fight. By the way? Who is this "they" and what have they done? ....and I have already told you I hope to never be where you are figuratively or literally. We're done here. Ignorance of the evidence, I see, is not exactly getting owned. "Nothing is what we have in terms of evidence" is....well, I believe you have used this word. But the diff is, I can. Wow. Just wow. All I'm saying is that this is a place to talk about it. If you're getting all your information here...um, whoops. Like any scientific topic, knowledge requires application. I see too many coming here for easy answers, and they aren't gonna be here. Were I some of the folks I read here, I'd take my frustrations out on a nearby wall, then get cracking on the evidence...or sit tight and wait for the proof. I'm not seeing the other approaches, for me, personally. They seem to be generating a whole lot of what we call 'work in the Newtonian sense.' I'd rather just know what's up. Edited May 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 Skeptics - what say you?Any good websites out there that debunk or what have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I don't think there are any sites who's information you can take to the bank. Best to talk personally to a quiet, respected researcher if you're that interested in knowing the real possibilities. Going to online sasquatch sites is mostly like reading the Entertainment Section in the local newspaper. t. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) ^^^Actually, I don't think that's true. Talking to one researcher is...well, look at all the different opinions here. There are respected researchers that have in my opinion roll-eyes takes on this topic. Talking to one or two or three people is getting one or two or three slants, and that is it. The online databases are the reports of people who are having actual encounters. Unless you buy that they're either all being made up by the 'researchers' or all hoaxes being sent in by random people. Or a random concatenation of same, which is always bet-against. And that is simply not the way they read, when one reads a lot of them. You start to iron out the slants; and see that people are seeing the same thing, and describing it in just the way you'd expect many people from many backgrounds to do that. This is what I mean by going for the easy answer. People are labeling the reports, who clearly haven't read them. They read like wildlife encounters. The footprints, many submitted with encounter reports, are described by relevant scientists as being subtly different from ours...in consistent ways. And as WSA puts it: we just aren't that good. And we aren't. The fake reports and fake photo/video and fake footprints all reflect clearly naive takes on the topic...which the 'live' stuff doesn't. The 'live' stuff behaves - reads, and looks - like an animal. Edited May 21, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) Skeptics - what say you? Any good websites out there that debunk or what have you? http://www.mnh.si.edu/mna/main.cfm Your search for "bigfoot" did not match any of the common names in our database. Your search for "sasquatch" did not match any of the common names in our database. Edited May 21, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts