hiflier Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Hello DWA, "And less evidence has been presented that that is anything other than what it looks like than that anything shot by Hubble is authentic (unless one just accepts scientists at their word)." http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/ Read 'em and weep, DWA. I'm outa here.
dmaker Posted February 19, 2014 Author Posted February 19, 2014 If you're so patient then why are you demanding an unproven species to be declared prematurely?
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Once AGAIN. Why isn't biology doing what astronomy is doing? That's the question the truly logical mind is asking. [edited because boy you just never know] Edited February 19, 2014 by DWA
hiflier Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Hello DWA, Sorry, had to address this: No comment on Hubble I see. Ah well.... You know? I do believe you have your sciences painted into a corner where there's only geeks in lab coats pushing pencils and who are somehow completely oblivious to the real world. When in fact THEY are showing us what the real world is, and beyond. Just because they don't go after Sasquatch you want to toss'em all under the bus. Biologists study the biology that IS. Astronomers study the astronomy that IS. And both can only do that to the extent that their instruments and math will allow. Math makes it theoretical, the instruments make it real. I think what you should find fault with are the anthropologists. THEY should be the ones out looking for this creature. We have hypotheses and theories galore as to why they are not. Why don't you get on the computer and start up some dialogue with some Anthropology Professors at some institutions of learning and ask THEM your questions and give THEM your critical viewpoint. You may be surprised at what you find out. Get active and get it from the horse's mouth. And then bring back what you discover for the benefit of the Forum. OR........go reread the "Is Sasquatch a Secret" thread. There's plent there to support a reason why ANTHROPOLOGICAL science isn't on board.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 No, actually the evidence says that in the relevant sciences, what we have - with a few exceptions, thanks Jeff John Grover et al - are a bunch of geeks in lab coats pushing pencils, and somehow completely oblivious to any aspect of the real world touching on their science that they personally are uncomfortable with. Know how I know, and that's not guess, that's KNOW? What they say. It convicts them, every time. Some of us are just listening. I don't need to go to a one of them or ask them a thing. Because they've already shown me their hands. Deuce high, and it ain't wild.
Guest Urkelbot Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I think your just going to be bitter until you can come to the realization that most scientists, and laypeople, just don't think the current evidence is enough to conclude bigfoot exists nor does the subject deserve more research and money. If you put down your bigfoot literature and reports and picked up some Biology journals you would discover that it is in fact quite a healthy field. Lots of new exciting research and discoveries are being made every day.
Guest Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Don't bother, Urkel. Anything not big and flashy is of no interest to him.
Guest Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Also if someone claimed that there was a black hole near Jupiter, astronomists would be "in denial" of that.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Sorry, guys. In science it never in the long run matters what scientists say. It matters what Science says. Here's what Science says about this: Sasquatch is all but proven, the weight of the evidence overwhelming (far more than we have for most celestial events we accept). The only thing left is the cherry on top, the type specimen that certifies the pretty obvious reality. Cold cup a water on yer party, but sometimes stuff is that way.
Guest Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 So how about that unknown primate DNA? Remember the title of this thread. It seems that once again, a thread on a specific topic gets turned into the some general subject.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Why anyone would have any reason not to be ecstatic over this - or hint hint to go turn some pages in some books and check into some websites and sorta, you know, get up to speed on this - is way beyond anyone who's paying attention. It's one of the more unusual entertainments I'm finding anyone engaging in on the web. I mean. Come on here.
Cotter Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Can I go to a zoo to see a bigfoot? No, but I spotted one at DQ a couple years back. Puts some credence into the 'does BF wear clothes' question.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 ^^^Look at those stomach proportions. NOT HUMAN. I might not be able to see anyone on these forums at a zoo either. Guess we're not real, huh.
southernyahoo Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I think your just going to be bitter until you can come to the realization that most scientists, and laypeople, just don't think the current evidence is enough to conclude bigfoot exists nor does the subject deserve more research and money. If you put down your bigfoot literature and reports and picked up some Biology journals you would discover that it is in fact quite a healthy field. Lots of new exciting research and discoveries are being made every day. I think the whole point that we are here discussing this subject is that there is some sort of enigma to solve as indicated by the evidence. It's intriguing, yet doesn't satisfy the world as proof. DWA seems to drive at the point that science does study things that are theoretical and seeks to prove something through experimental observation and tests. Yet it doesn't with bigfoot, and the lack of funds to do so, is like a self fulfilling prophecy. I don't agree that science is totally ignoring the subject as several geneticists do engage the biological evidence though I'm not statisfied that some look at everything they could in that regard. Of coarse the idea that science or biologists are completely oblivious to the evidence is false. It is still weak on reasoning, for science to say there is nothing to study here and doesn't warrant funding. Bigfootery just scored 100k on a TV show, so maybe there is a turn in the road ahead.
Guest DWA Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) And what is all this about bitter? Those of us who are paying attention - OK I'll just speak for myself - are quite comfortable with what the evidence says. I'm not here, as some people very much appear to be, to look superior or to win an argument. I know what's up. Bitter is reserved for people who want to win an argument, without trying...and can't. Again, I am not arguing with anyone here. What the evidence says is a very clear matter of record. One not knowing that might want to address that issue. And yeah, maybe "oblivious" is too strong a word. How about "whistling past a graveyard of bad ideas they don't want to toss just yet." Edited February 19, 2014 by DWA
Recommended Posts