Drew Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 There is literally nothing the TBRC can produce short or a hairy pile of dead wood ape that will convince you (and people like you) that they're real. Nothing. No track, no hair, no film or image. No account, regardless of how detailed or how many corroborating witnesses were present, no sound recording or bloody rock. However, I and several of my associates have seen and interacted with them. Period. They are there. We are now way past the point of needing to perform any investigation to rule out something that is totally ridiculous to us (that we are being hoaxed either from within or without). We do, however, need to engage in whatever methods will result in the production of incontrovertible proof of the existence of those things we have seen, smelled, heard, and otherwise experienced. It's not my fault that in the mean time we get a good story out of it. Believe me, we'd rather have the proof than the story. All we care about is establishing the animal. We care not one whit that you believe us in the meantime. Six points is all you're getting out of me. If nothing would convince you that it is something other than an Ape, then clearly you need no convincing that it is indeed an Ape. You have gone of the rails of the science track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 If nothing would convince you that it is something other than an Ape, then clearly you need no convincing that it is indeed an Ape. You have gone of the rails of the science track. What are you saying here? Bipto has seen them, interacted with them, collected data on them, etc. Why would he need to be convinced that what he has experienced and collected data on is not what he thinks it is? I think he is in a better position to evaluate and judge the data, and determine what he is dealing with, than anyone else. Just because you don't believe what he has said and reported, doesn't mean that he has "gone off the rails of the science track." Seems to me that you have already done that, since you will not take his word on what he has seen and experienced at face value. To me, that is the height of close-mindedness (if that is a word...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 You have gone of the rails of the science track. I would say we're now on the same "science track" as those who have directly observed a phenomenon and are working to either recreate their observation and/or document their observation so that it can be accepted by others. Just because you don't have enough facts to appreciate why we're certain of what we've experienced doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) I would say we're now on the same "science track" as those who have directly observed a phenomenon and are working to either recreate their observation and/or document their observation so that it can be accepted by others. Just because you don't have enough facts to appreciate why we're certain of what we've experienced doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that certainty. No kidding. Observation is science, class. Jane Goodall went "off the rails" and has taught us, directly or indirectly, about 90% of what we know about chimpanzees. Some people don't recognize pure science when they see it. Unfortunately, many if not most scientists are in that number. Take your average scientist out of his narrow discipline, and he's an auto mechanic. Who only does Volkswagens from the sixties. (Tell Alton Higgins he definitely ain't one of those.) What are you saying here? Bipto has seen them, interacted with them, collected data on them, etc. Why would he need to be convinced that what he has experienced and collected data on is not what he thinks it is? I think he is in a better position to evaluate and judge the data, and determine what he is dealing with, than anyone else. Just because you don't believe what he has said and reported, doesn't mean that he has "gone off the rails of the science track." Seems to me that you have already done that, since you will not take his word on what he has seen and experienced at face value. To me, that is the height of close-mindedness (if that is a word...). Right. This is why I always use "bigfoot skeptic" in quotes. They're not skeptical. They have no case, just a tissue of assumptions. They stick to their true belief in what they want to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence they refuse to acknowledge. (Close-mindedness, word. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/close-mindedness ) Edited December 14, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 How many scientists, or teams of scientists, during the course of their work dwell on the possibility that everything they are observing is more than likely an inside job by one of their assembled team members? If this is their main concern, how are they even able to continue? How is establishing trust in your team, "going off the rails" scientifically? You're asking them to spend much of their already limited time to create databases, logbooks and journals, then even more time to analyze that data to see if someone possibly sticks out as some type of mole. Sounds real productive. They've all gone through a vetting process, and not just anybody is allowed out there. In any team scenario, if the team is more concerned that one or more of them is out to undermine accomplishing the objective, the focus on that objective is going to suffer terribly. Not putting together Hooveresque files is sign that they believe every member of the team is focused on the same goal. Is that out of bounds? And just what exactly would they have to do to satisfy you that they are taking all the necessary measures to ensure that they are not conspiring against themselves, so that they may be able to focus on their main goal of documenting this species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Nothing will convince anyone like that. Their basic approach is: Science can do nothing until a bigfoot falls on its collective head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yes, lets paint all scientists with a broad stroke because they don't argee with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Naaaaaaah, just most of them. Yes, the ones who disagree with me. They're wrong. Next? And if you read it (not reading, an occupational hazard of "bigfoot skepticism,") you'd see that we ain't exactly disagreeing with a scientist here. Edited December 15, 2012 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Actually the majority of scientists are more open-minded and intelligent than sarky internet experts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 ...like you, maybe? Not on this topic they aren't. It's cool to talk down to scientists. When you are paying attention, sometimes you get the opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Never said I was smarter. Its also cute to see an internet expert think that he's "talking down to scientists". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, I am, buddy. Do it a lot. Their fault. Can't help it. When I keep hearing where's the evidence? from degreed professionals, and I found it on my own, well, kinda makes me wish they'd stop stepping out of their depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (Close-mindedness, word. http://www.thefreedi...lose-mindedness ) Thank you! I was in a hurry to go out an run an errand, and didn't have time to look it up... It sounded okay, I thought... Actually the majority of scientists are more open-minded and intelligent than sarky internet experts. You obviously have not or do not work in any "science" field. Most practitioners are as open-minded on their pet subject matter of expertise as are junior high school girls on what is "in-fashion"... (And yes, I am speaking from experience, having worked in geology and hydrogeology for approximately 18 years in my first career.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Actually the majority of scientists are more open-minded and intelligent than sarky internet experts. Really? Tell that one to Melba Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Grover Krantz: "My university supports my sasquatch research. They don't fire me." It's becoming my favorite quote. He said it long ago, but ask Meldrum if it's still true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts