Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 dmaker said : My opinion is that it speaks to the confidence level in the evidence. I believe the scientific proponents know the evidence would not pass peer review, so they publish books instead. And if the evidence is agreed to not be strong enough to pass peer review, then what evidence is out there uncontested? Right now, for bigfoot findings to be properly reviewed, they must be submitted for peer review. That is the process. That they are not, should be a message in itself. I could not agree more. I have spoken with some scientists that have said this exactly same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 11 hours ago, hiflier said: You are a very smart and intelligent guy, WSA. Knowing that, you can run this down yourself. Oh wait. you can't because you're not a Premium member, too bad. I'm therefore no allowed to direct you. I mean I COULD direct you but you wouldn't be allowed to view anything. In fact I don't think I'm even allowed to say anything about what's there. Not a surprise then that you are clueless and I don't mean that in a disparaging way at all. What I can say though is that there IS a way forward in this subject. A way to get past just opinion posting and really sink one's teeth in. I apologize for being nebulous but I think the back of my mind didn't allow me to be up front right away- it's apparently smarter than I am in that respect. Probably a good thing now that I think about it. DWA is in the same boat and so is clueless. But he doesn't talk to me anyway fortunately. What are you referring to Hiflier? The Database project or the Researcher section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Researcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKH Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 YouTube or the woods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 There you go again, hiflier, making yourself out to be forum boss. Gets old. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 DWA is the Forum boss JDL, everyone knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: dmaker said : My opinion is that it speaks to the confidence level in the evidence. I believe the scientific proponents know the evidence would not pass peer review, so they publish books instead. And if the evidence is agreed to not be strong enough to pass peer review, then what evidence is out there uncontested? Right now, for bigfoot findings to be properly reviewed, they must be submitted for peer review. That is the process. That they are not, should be a message in itself. I could not agree more. I have spoken with some scientists that have said this exactly same thing. See, the reason they call them the *scientific* proponents? They know why the evidence would not pass peer review. And it has nothing to do with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 11 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: I could not agree more. I have spoken with some scientists that have said this exactly same thing. Echo chambers are documented to work in particular ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, hiflier said: DWA is the Forum boss JDL, everyone knows that. He's not the one judging what does or does not "advance" the forum. Or what is allowed or disallowed, though it otherwise falls within forum guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) On 6/19/2017 at 0:44 PM, WSA said: DWA...I'm not ever going to believe the encounter reports are going to draw the attention they deserve, as much as we both find them compelling. They are either icing on the cake for the serious investigator, or the starting point of serious investigation. They offer no peer reviewable information that I can see/. Chasing after a sighting might lead to something forensically reviewable, but then we come back around to the accessibility of the evidence issue again, most likely. They have strong objective qualities to them, we both know, but... Well, at this point, I don't think *anything* is going to draw the attention it deserves. Except from the people who count, which would not be the mainstream. Krantz said that the footprints alone sufficed. He is of course right. But that one's just blowin in the wind too. Frequency and coherence = compelling; and the starting point of serious investigation has to be landed upon to pass GO and collect $200. Edited June 21, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, JDL said: He's not the one judging what does or does not "advance" the forum. Or what is allowed or disallowed, though it otherwise falls within forum guidelines. Thats because DWA doesn't care what advances the forum. And he certainly isn't worried about poor taste....like dredging up ancient threads to evidently bury newer ones. Your beating up the wrong guy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) Oh STOP this. And understand how scientists work. Those ancient threads are dead when you've shot your bigfoot and it's in Scientific American. And not until, and maybe even not then. They are much more interesting than a significant amount of what's going on in current threads. And one thing advances the forum AND THAT IS SCIENCE; and unfortunately too many on here don't understand how that puppy *works.* Edited June 21, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 21, 2017 Author Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, JKH said: YouTube or the woods. I think some may have misinterpreted the question of the thread. The question is where should professional scientists review existing bigfoot evidence? As in review evidence currently being offered and share their analysis. Not literally where should they look for bigfoot evidence. The question is meant to highlight the lack of bigfoot related peer review submissions and to give proponents a chance to offer an alternative to peer review if they believe it to be flawed. So far we have closed door one on one sessions, book reviews, YouTube and bigfoot websites. I don't think peer review has much to fear at this point. Any other suggestions? Edited June 21, 2017 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Including those who think the mainstream is providing informed commentary on this topic and needs to be invited to a party they laugh at. Let 'em stew. go on without 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 13 hours ago, hiflier said: Researcher. OK, you can't discuss anything posted there or anywhere in the premium section here in the general section, but you can talk about the researcher section all you want as far as the purpose of it. I wish more folks took advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts