Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 You've been educated on examples of mainstream scientists looking at bigfoot evidence, but you still cling to the idea that it doesn't happen. No I haven't been "educated" on it. I have been shown it's not happening. Go ahead, educate me. You continue to believe that bigfoot proponents are being prosecuted, even though Meldrum was promoted to full time professor. I continue to not care about this! You just keep bringing it up, as if it scores points for you or something (that ol' win-the-argument thing again). Sorry. The mainstream is utterly disengaged from this topic, and stop trying to show otherwise. You have dredged up big zero so far. It is actually getting embarrassing. You still think peer-reviewers automatically reject pro-bigfoot papers, and when I showed you Meldrum's paper you came up with some convoluted reason why you're still right.t l Right. And the resounding echoes throughout academe sound just like ...[crickets]. The paper remains UNADDRESSED. You always make sweeping generalizations and when someone challenges these, you subtly change your position and move the goal-posts. Sorry, but you can't lecture people on "true" and honest debate. Who is debating? As I said, we patiently show others why you are wrong. (We may have to give up with you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't think I could stomach the Tar Pit version of this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I couldn't. I don't engage in evidence-free mudslinging. In the end, their posts are their best monument. Some causes are just lost. OP's point made and re-made a thousand times over. Outta here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't think I could stomach the Tar Pit version of this conversation. Yeah, but at least it could be relatively free of moderation. The members could also avoid punitive measures when things get heated. It would also benefit the entire forum. Just a thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Well as I added (right after you posted I guess), I think this thread has made its point. Which is to me: I'll take the corner of the world I inhabit, any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I don't think I could stomach the Tar Pit version of this conversation. Awww C'mon chelefoot, then you could sit back and enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) I'm going to assume that last comment was aimed at DWA. Well, you know what they say about when one assumes something. Edited November 28, 2013 by Old Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 If by "dogma" you mean well supported science then yes. You wouldn't be hearing many skeptics criticizing vaccines, heliocentricism, evolution, plate tectonics, ect. Whenever fringe theories label something "dogma", its code for "a theory that is more useful and has more evidence then mine." No it's not "code", Jerry, it's fact. The AMA is a perfect example which I had first hand experience with in my early 20's after my second daughter was born with an extremely aggressive and virulent form of cancerous tumor known as fibrous sarcoma. Big Pharma the FDA and the AMA are all joined at the hip for financial reasons first and foremost. As a result, they are responsible for huge amounts of unecessary suffering and countless deaths thanks to their supposedly "well supported science". So when they couldn't propose any treatments besides surgery for my 1 month old daughter and they had banned Laetrille (vitamin B-17) in the US because Big Pharma couldn't make any money selling a vitamin to treat Cancer, I had to tell the Surgeon to just do his best and I would handle the rest. I went to the library and found a book written by a Doctor who had cured himself using Laetrile that had detailed instructions on how to incorporate Apricot pit kernels into my daughters diet once she had recovered from the surgery. We were told that after the surgery that there was close to a 100% chance that the Cancer would return and if it did she would die. And all the Doctors, Oncologists and the Cancer research specialists with PHD's all scoffed at me. She is now a 33 year old mother of 3 and Laetrille is still banned. So much for their "well supported science". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Right. And the resounding echoes throughout academe sound just like ...[crickets]. The paper remains UNADDRESSED. Again, moving the goalposts. You've said that pro-bigfoot papers could never get past review. No I haven't been "educated" on it. I have been shown it's not happening. Go ahead, educate me. There have been examples of alleged bigfoot hair being sent to scientists and tested. Because it doesn't come back the results you want. It doesn't count. I went to the library and found a book written by a Doctor who had cured himself using Laetrile that had detailed instructions Once again, based on one anecdote, you automatically buy the doctor's claims. She is now a 33 year old mother of 3 and Laetrille is still banned. So much for their "well supported science". So you're convinced that Laetrille is a miracle cure based on one book. To hell with actual clinical studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 DWA, how can you say you continue to not care about Meldrums full professorship, yet bemoan how he has sacrificed his career for the noble pursuit of Bigfooting? That makes no sense. Also, how can you say that science does not examine Bigfoot evidence when Dr.Sykes just spent a couple of years conducting a DNA study? Is he not mainstream enough for you? Or is it that you don't like the results because they do not fit with your argument, so we'll just pretend that Sykes never happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Jiggy is a very insightful person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 28, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Well, I'm a "true skeptic", and I realize BF might exist. BUT, it has nothing to do with beliefs. It is all about FACTS. Again, you focus on beliefs, which are subjective and a "true skeptic" does not deal in perceived truths, we evaluate FACTS and reach an educated conclusion from them. So, I would say your analysis of "skeptics" is a hasty generalization of our intellectual stand, which omits many valid points. I'm sure many of us would be willing to engage in a detailed discussion of your perceived points of truth. p.s. I'm gonna have the guys over and we'll be watching football all day Sunday, so I wont respond 'til monday.... And he won't be in a good mood on any Monday's anytime soon Jiggy, 'cause the Skins is gonna lose. LOL. (forewarned is forearmed) Did I just say forearmed, yah the Skins need alot more of that too. Edited November 28, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 ^^^ Great way to lighten the mood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 So you're convinced that Laetrille is a miracle cure based on one book. Did I say Laetrile is a "miracle cure"? No I did not, but you did. What I am conviced of is that Laetrile is both a very effective treatment for Cancer and is very effective at preventing Cancer. But your beloved medical "establishment" can't make any money selling people Vtamin B-17. However it makes Billion$ per year off of the Cancer industry. The most important thing I'm convinced of is that it saved my daughters life. And the PHD's at Emory who studied her case 10 years later could come to no other conclusion than it was the Laetrile that kept the Fibrous Sarcoma from coming back. To hell with actual clinical studies. Here is your source for 62 very well documented clinical studies: http://www.realityzone.com/lch.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I am starting to think PS4s are as rare as Bigfeets. Ran to two different Future Shops at lunch only to be met with the salesperson handing off the last unit to a customer. Foiled by seconds, each time! argh. Back on topic: Bigfoot is not real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts