How Many Normal (Relatively) Intelligent, Adult, Witnesses Without A Prior Agenda Does It Take To Have Any Provative Weight Towards The Unknown?

[Guest DWA]

No you haven't.

 

Anyone who thinks, for example, that hoaxes are even worth talking about hasn't really looked at the evidence.  They sure haven't thought about it, let's just say that.

[Guest]

Ooh, right on time!

 

1) Do you have a frontal lobe?

2) Are you familiar with the bigfoot evidence?

3) You don't buy it?!

4) You are deficient in either #1 or #2.  Take your pick.

 

5) Because I said so.

[Guest]

So you have proven our point all along, you can't accept other opinions. Let's have the other members decide who is sane.

[Guest DWA]

I'm just inquiring of other opinions on what they are basing their opinions.  There are quite a few here who are not basing their opinions on what we could call 'rational' in most contexts.

One thing that wouldn't be considered 'rational' in most contexts is not recognizing open-mindedness when one sees it.

 

Another thing that wouldn't be considered 'rational' in most contexts is branding a close-minded opinion like the one above me open-minded.

 

Oh, and who is 'our'?  The We Are Legion National Non-Believers In Bigfoot Inc., Ltd. .com?

 

See this is what happens when you let that belief thing take over.  You begin to think you are speaking for everybody.

 

Um...not.

Edited June 9, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

People Booger,

 

I guess it is the central question to be asked of eyewitness accounts. Can we trust reports from those who are trustworthy?

 

Here is something to consider. When I was a teenager a long time ago (....but not long in geologic time), my grandmother told me that mermaids were real. I inquired why she thought so. She told me her brother had seen military duty during the Great War and when he returned home he told her an interesting story. While on a cargo/troop ship, he saw what he said was a mermaid. He said she was most beautiful, had very long hair on her head, and was slowly combing her hair like a human would. My grandmother trusted her brother, and believed in mermaids ever after.

 

DWA,

 

Let's boil it down to the basic. You put great store in eyewitness accounts. Now, as a thought experiment, let us put you in charge of a large scale scientific investigation into the Bigfoot question. You allocate resources and sign off on strategy.

 

With ample scientific resources, how would you investigate the sightings issue? Would you suffice with creating a data base of sightings? Would you send primatologists out in the field to pound the ground and dig up new eyewitnesses to interview? Would you have your team try to impeach eyewitness accounts, or accept such accounts uncritically? Would you have bloodhounds on the ground ready for the next report? A tracker on call, 24/7?   

 

Just how would you tackle the eyewitness issue in a way that would yield information that would help solve the Bigfoot question, one way or another?

[Guest]

Just how would you tackle the eyewitness issue in a way that would yield information that would help solve the Bigfoot question, one way or another?

Duhhhh, he'd have all scientists read Bindernagel's book.  Problem. Solved.

[norseman]

[Guest DWA]

 

Just how would you tackle the eyewitness issue in a way that would yield information that would help solve the Bigfoot question, one way or another?

Duhhhh, he'd have all scientists read Bindernagel's book.  Problem. Solved.

 

OH COME ON.  How much do I have to put up before you read any of it?

 

Read my posts, though, and folks know I am reading you.

 

I'm really kind of disappointed that a scientist with he says relevant chops is so way behind the curve on this.  It really dims my impression of scientists.  I'm doing a better job of wildlife biology on this, an honest wildlife biologist would say reading our posts.

 

Yes.  Reading Bindernagel would be a science lesson, at the very least.

 

For a lot of you.

[Guest]

Oh, so are you suggesting that somewhere you have described what you think scientists should do about their great bigfootepiphany?  I've pressed you on this many times and have never seen anything specific from you on that.  All I ever see from you is "take it seriously" and you don't describe what that means.  Seems jerrywayne has the same experience with your posts:  high on bluster, low on specifics.

[dmaker]

DWA: I really love how humble you are, but you probably don't need me to tell you that when you have yourself.

Have you told yourself today what an awesome job you're doing?

Oh, so are you suggesting that somewhere you have described what you think scientists should do about their great bigfootepiphany? I've pressed you on this many times and have never seen anything specific from you on that. All I ever see from you is "take it seriously" and you don't describe what that means. Seems jerrywayne has the same experience with your posts: high on bluster, low on specifics.

I don't think it' s a matter of taking it seriously. All that is acceptable to him is that you agree with him. He will dismiss you as not being familiar with the evidence based on the fact that you do not share his opinion. Yet people have demonstrated here, recently even, that they are quite familiar with the evidence but still do not share his opinion. Still, out with the trash you go! There is one acceptable conclusion here, and that is the one shared by him and his illuminaries: Meldrum, Bindernagel, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern.

Familiarity with the evidence is a smoke screen. He doesn't care if you are familiar with the evidence and can demonstrate that. All he cares about is that you agree with him. Any new member could come on here and as long as he just kept eating up DWA's rhetoric they'd be palsy as all get out. Not once would he stop and demand that the person become familiar with evidence. Any ignorant rube will do as long as he is parroting what good ole DWA says. Evidence, schmevidence! It's all about agreeing with DWA. That is the only thing that matters in any thread he is involved with.

Edited June 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

And what would the specifics be?

 

Attach it to a bigfoot and we're fine.

 

OH, OK.  You find the bigfoot, I'll attach the evidence.  Until then I'm just fine with things.

 

If you disagree with me, folks, and can't give a good reason for doing it and "no proof yet" isn't a good reason, then you don't have a good reason for disagreeing with me.  How much simpler could I make it?

 

You all seem so put upon.  Awwwwwwwwwww. 

Can't explain anything so simply, succinctly or (whew!) repeatedly than I have what science should be doing about this.

 

Oh well, no skin off mine.  Reread at leisure.

[dmaker]

^^Uhm, so what exactly should scientists be doing again? I assume you will have no problem describing this in detail since you have proclaimed yourself an awesome biologist just on the strength of your posts. You didn't even have to earn a degree either! AND you have a legion of imaginary Internet biologists that concur and also grant you your made up status. Never mind the folks that actually earned their degrees and spend their proffessional lives doing wildlife biology. Naw, their opinion wouldn't count, would it? Just the imaginary ones that proclaim you King of the Internet Wildlife Biologists!

So, Mr I'm an Awesome Wildlife Biologist, what exactly should biologists be doing right now that they are currently not? Other than reading your posts on Bigfoot?

[Guest DWA]

Wow.

 

Um.

 

Wow.

 

I JUST PUT UP A POST THAT SAYS

 

Can't explain anything so simply, succinctly or (whew!) repeatedly than I have what science should be doing about this.

 

Oh well, no skin off mine.  Reread at leisure.

 

Seriously.  I am not paid to do people's research for them, fellas!  If I figured this out...well, wait, better not finish that sentence given what I've been seeing.  But I'd bet a penny or two I have lying around on you, anyway.

Like WSA says:  jobs that require basic skills in sussing and thinking about what one reads might be pretty safe if only bigfoot skeptics are the competition for them.

 

Where do you all think all this discussion is coming from?  Thin air?

 

Evidently.

 

[waits for "where's the proof" said in the 5,867,958th different way]

[dmaker]

Perhaps when you bury your point in confusing rhetoric, it gets missed?

Let's try a simpler approach. Can you list 5 things that scientists should be doing today that they are not?

Just five please.

Oh, and I'll keep my current career, thanks. Though maybe you can apply for those that require made up credentials?

Edited June 10, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Sorry, I'm getting too much evidence that I'm developing carpal tunnel over stuff that isn't getting read.^^^The latest.

 

Not encouraging.

 

I mean, all those guys whose case is right in print are available for perusal any time.

I do wonder, though, why proponents never seem to use the I-don't-understand-your-rhetoric line.  It's in English, sorry.  It is, I have to admit, rather sophisticated English.