Leaderboard

Aye, and yet the "experts" like Meldrum will disagree. Disagree with folks who've seen these instances, and yet he's never even seen one. But because he has "credentials," his word is given much more weight than the accumulation of reports to the contrary. That's why Meldrum I think, is breaking the First Rule of BS'ting. Never start believing your own BS.

I have some thoughts on the supposedly stalled BF science. I think we are just being too impatient. Probably the most pertinent history in science to BF is the discovery of dinosaurs. The Chinese were selling dragons teeth, and everyone just thought that marketing for alternative medicine products. Dragons and dinosaurs are pretty close to the same thing if you think about it. Until the mid 1800s while teeth and bones had been found, no one actually put two and two together that they were extinct creatures totally unlike anything living today. When that connection was made in 1841, what was known about dinosaurs exploded in the late 1800s and 1900s. If and until that skeleton, fossil or body is available we are just waiting for that discovery to propel sasquatch from myth to science and everything that comes along with it.

Bring in a bigfoot bone and then we'll talk. Right now, legends is all there are. I've never advocated anything to the contrary. But I'm willing to bet that nature is not done pitching curve balls to science. And our understanding of our past will change again.

Without experts you don't have science. Without knowledge you don't have wisdom. Without facts you have speculation. If you have speculation that is opposed to facts then you have deception. Without experts you don't have science. Without knowledge you don't have wisdom. Without facts you have speculation. If you have speculation that is opposed to facts then you have deception. So you have a spectrum to choose from. I come down with the experts, at least ones I respect. They don;t define the whole spectrum of my beliefs but are invaluable in the development of my fact based beliefs (theories). Now I'm about to get into a bit of trouble here. 1. Without experts you don't have science. The problem I see with many "experts" is that they learn by rote, and repeat the same. I think the greatest job in the world is a physics theorist. You get to postulate - and never actually have to prove anything. I have been fortunate to have been included in a small circle of folks who violate classical physics on a regular basis. I've seen them call in forensic engineering firms to perform tests to verify their results, stay on site and replicate the process several times, even special engineering firms called in from Germany, and they all pack up their stuff in frustration and walk out the door. When asked about the results - "We cannot release these test data. They are impossible. We'd be out of business in a week." So much for the science part. Testable, verifiable, conclusive, repeatable test results - and no way, no how, are those to be released. Multiple discoveries - but they're sitting on a shelf and it will be decades before more traditional science finally catches up, and then, "Oh. We knew it all the time." The Conquistadors in their many travels to areas adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico and South and Central America, traveled with priests who documented many things they witnessed or participated in. They document multiples of meetings with Giants whom they may come up to their waist. Now the Spanish also brought diseases that wiped out entire populations - but their recordings of these many Giants in many areas - just don't matter. Not to science. Because to consider this would violate their carefully crafted story of mankind on the North American/Central American/South American territories, especially their wild migration theories which they keep having to push back and alter every few years. 2. Without knowledge, you don't have wisdom. Do we ever agree on that! Problem is, the only knowledge allowed is highly selective, and must conform to prevalent theories. If it falls outside the theory, the knowledge - right there for the taking - is discarded. Sometimes they say "that's just narrative," or they'll say, "this is anomalyous evidence." Science will only allow evidence (knowledge) that falls within a very narrow subset of knowledge they have arbitrarily defined. 3. Without facts, you have speculation. Ain't it the truth. The speculation is present in many current models and postulations as they disallow facts to speak for themselves - they feel they must interject themselves into the process - and speak for the facts. Seriously? So my contention is that much "science" by ignoring facts, is in of itself - speculation. 4. If you have speculation that is opposed to facts, then you have deception. I think in several areas, even historical claims of giants, even hairy giants from every culture all over the world, over millennia, we are truly victims of deception. They won't see - because they don't want to see. It's much easier to craft an entire species from a tooth than to re-locate scores and scores of giant skeletons which have been turned in to the "experts", but have mysteriously disappeared. Like spending a dollar to pursue a nickel. Makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're an "expert" with credentials running out of your fourth point of contact - and the facts will render all your expertise, all your study, all your knowledge - obsolete.