Leaderboard

Bobbyo has worked on the SSR tirelessly, and when you mistook what he meant by classification and he corrected you? That's when things got nasty..... It didn't have to be that way

That's not necessarily the character assassination of another. To make claims without presenting evidence is assassinating one's own character, IMO.

Yes, however that is not what was being asked or discussed. The original claim made by DWA was that alleged bigfoot samples have been analyzed and returned a result of " unknown primate DNA". He claims this has happened numerous times. When asked to support this pretty impressive claim with some sort of documentation he either clams up or disappears from the thread completely. He then finally returned and basically said it happened because he heard some people say it happened. And that their claim--minus any evidence whatsoever--should be considered as truthful until proven otherwise. This from someone who is a self proclaimed super scientist. From someone who says he accepts no claims without evidence. Yet here he is doing exactly that. No evidence at all to back up his claim, yet he says it must be true until proven otherwise. That is not science, that is pseudoscience. That is an attempt to provide negative evidence against a rival theory rather than provide positive evidence for a claim. Not very scientific DWA.

Nowhere, but I wasn't saying that they should substantiate their claims. All I was saying is that if protecting their privacy was of concern that they should not share any information. Privacy, if what's truly desired, isn't protected by "Hey, look at what's happening to me" in the day and age of computers. I believe they want to make claims to draw attention to themselves, which is the exact opposite of protecting their privacy.

Character assassination is a two-way street. Certain posters, no mater the number of reports they've read, present no more valid "scientific method" than the most rank skeptic.

I feel frustrated about the direction that the research aspect of the subject seems to have taken. People making outlandish claims, some researchers (term used loosely) presenting findings that cannot be substantiated, and the shows used to entertain do nothing for the seriously interested enthusiast. They all seem to discredit and make light of both the creature and the study of them. There's no shortage of serious research efforts, though. All you have to do is find that niche' among the muck and mire. Personally, I tend to shy away from outlandish claims like mind speak, telepathy, teleportation, association with orbs, and habituation claims with spiritual implications for the humans. It seems that if any of this stuff were true, these "knowers" would present proof of such claims, but, rather conveniently, they claim to choose not to do so because of their desire to protect the creature, or because they feel "special" to have been selected by the creature because of some purity or goodness that they themselves posses. To listen to some of these descriptions of the creature, you'd think they are bullet-proof and clad in a cape. Fortunately, there are more grounded claims and efforts to disseminate more logical and realistic information without all of the anthropomorphic and paranormal associations. These outlandish claims make the topic a target of ridicule and make anyone with a serious interest in the creature look like a lunatic to the majority of the populace. Personally, I think the warm, fuzzy, flute playing, supernatural, wise and benevolent forest hippy persona of the creature has done more to deflect from serious research by the scientific community than anything else.