Leaderboard

Hello DWA,, THANK YOU FOR RISING TO THE CHALLENGES I PRESENTED TO YOU. Typical dodging/ignoring maneuvers. Should've known

History will show who is right. Funny you mention T-Rex. When footprints and fossils were found, main stream science declared them fakes, fabrications and misidentified animals at first.

We all acknowledge that it will take conclusive evidence to "prove" squatch exist to larger community, but I think it true that scientists regularly accept a lesser amount of evidence in other cases to put time, effort, and money into documenting a species. I often hear the extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims line, and it puts me off because declaring something extraordinary is not an objective scientific process. It is subjective and based on presumption. When someone uses the line they are essentially saying that they will not accept the same standard of evidence for a particular claim, because they do not believe that the claim can be true. But it is what it is.

I gave you two clear examples where you can improve. Burden of proof and testable evidence. You would be well served to lessen your emphasis on anecdotes and focus more on evidence that can be scientifically analyzed. That is if you ever want something more than the current level of discussion. One other suggestion if I may? You may want to abandon this patois that you implement in favor of plain English. I think most of us here would greatly appreciate not having to decipher what it is you think you are saying half the time.

Nobody in this instant conversation is saying there is enough evidence to prove BF exists. Again. Are we really back to that same old, tired, misappreciation? Really? No, I mean, really.......? Look, DWA is , for all his cicumlocution (because it is FUN to jab the jab-able...and y'all never disapoint) only voicing axioms of science 101. That it would be seriously disputed that it is the job of responsible science to follow evidence to proof is what keeps him coming back, time and again. That it would be seriously disputed that science draws conclusions each and every day based on non-verifiable observations (go look up some theoretical physics if you think this is a "WHOA!" moment for you) that keeps his energy up. Y'all just give him that, time and time again. You've become so entrenched in opposition to these non-disputable tenents that you're only making it all the more enjoyable for him. Do what you want, but I can tell you the guy has got way more calories for the job than you are going to muster. Trust me.

Hello DWA, But that's all you EVER say. Post evidence if you're so keen on it being the do-all to end-all and back up your proselytizing. Otherwise......you beat the dead horse.

Hello DWA, You're doing it again. Trying to weedle your way inside someone's brain. Let it go.

Nah, you're putting an invalid spin on it. I will take you at your word that you hallucinate. Someone else MIGHT, but that's not the same as "everyone does" which seems to be what you're trying to insinuate. We're not all as messed up as you in the same ways as you, we have our own different and creative ways and amounts of being messed up. That's just how it is. So far as I can tell I've never hallucinated anything in my life unless this whole existence is a hallucination and you're a figment of my imagination just like everyone else. The take-away: not everyone is hallucinating every bigfoot they see. MIB

What's to debate with dmaker? The evidence is lacking. Is there a debate about that? Look, I'm a skeptic that wants to believe, that hopes something comes thru to prove the big guy's existence. But to berate an avowed skeptic because he (correctly) points out there is no proof is a mistake. Put up and make the avowed skeptics shut up.