Leaderboard

And yet, there is little difference between anecdotal evidence and witness testimony, the basis of our legal systems and on which people's lives often hang in the balance. Further, based on the standard you have applied, every 911 call could be dismissed by a skeptical operator as anecdotal, thus giving that 911 operator/dispatcher, in their own absolute and self-assigned authority, cause to not take action on any 911 call, because they believe witness reports to be so flawed that they can be universally ignored. Life's a lot easier if one has at least some faith in people. One cannot, with certitude say that all witnesses are flawed without acknowledging that their own opinions may be equally flawed. To maintain that one is not flawed, but everyone else is, puts one in the realm of another scientific discipline, psychology, and psychologists have a standing diagnosis for such a condition.

Think of it this way Llawgoch, if you by any chance are a poker player, you'll get this. DWA is saying, "I have three of a kind." (Or, to state it in terms you might agree with more, "I have an Ace high") Your saying, "No, you don't" won't even call his hand, let alone take the pot. He is asking for you to show your cards. You hold no cards is all we can assume. You say folks are copying one another in their sighting reports? Give us an example of where/how/when this has ever happened. Failing to do that = no cards. With the criteria you are advocating, you would be free to theorize anything you want to propose, limited only by your imagination. The "BF Doesn't Exist" lenses make it very, very hard to get any inkling of theoretical truth from sighting reports. You could even go so far as to shut yourself off from even reading them. Umm....am I to guess you don't, you know, actually read them? Well, there you go. And too, I've never heard DWA state you or anyone else should accept the existence of BF. He is saying, as I have said many times, the evidence points to more probable than not and should be pursued. It is the whole "pursuit" thing we don't ever get much help on from the skoftics. To give the evidence no value, as you apparently do, is, no matter how many times I encounter it, genuinely remarkable. I have to say, you obviously are much more sophisticated in your approach to discerning the credibility of others than I am. You'd think after questioning people under oath for 35 years I'd know better. Some people, huh? Yep, that's me all over, Mr. Gullible! Whatever you do though, don't tell the wife, she's already threatened to not let me out of the house without supervision.

Response to Cotter: Cheers. Nice to have a rational and logical response. The only thing is, we are not arguing about which one of those explanations is more correct than the other. We are arguing about the fact that DWA claims that without 'proof' of mine, only his can be considered, whether he supplies any proof for it or not. I quite agree that what you say would help if somebody wishes to establish that the consistency is down to reporting a genuine animal rather than simply copying what has already been seen. I'd add that another thing to examine would be trends, where something (odour, quadrupedal movement) has a 'vogue' of being reported then tails off - this would suggest (not empirically prove, just suggest) that people were repeating stories rather than observing an actual behaviour. I of course don't have the time and inclination to do this either. But anyone who wants to go any way towards proving that consistency is down to one thing or the other has to do this, and not claim that their explanation is true by assertion unless somebody else 'proves' them wrong. Why is it not incumbent on someone suggesting the consistency must be down to it being an actual animal to provide any evidence of that? Again, I am not saying something is the case, only DWA is. I am offering alternative possibilities. Nobody has mentioned collusion. You don't have to collude to copy something you read on the internet, or in a book. With regard to your as expected "Are you calling me a liar?" response, DWA regularly makes it clear what he thinks of the stories of those who claim to habituate BF, or maintain that they behave in a human like way. What evidence does he have to slander them so? Yet you have no problem with this, it seems. And if you can reference me to the reports that have names and checkable identities that relate to local constabulary and armed forces members, I'd be interested to see them. If someone anonymously claims to be a police officer, not so much.

Geez, give it a rest already. Constantly pushing your anti-skeptic campaign isn't going to make your views any more right.