Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Doesn't change anything. There is still no proof.
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Scientists don't sit on their hands waiting for proof. Scientists follow evidence to the proof. As they are gonna get reminded - a lot, and very uncomfortably - if their inattention to this continues. Do you have any idea how much $$$$ has been spent on SETI, searching for something for which there is ZERO evidence...? Edited May 20, 2014 by DWA
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Yes, and it's all private money now. Just as the search for Bigfoot is now. How people spend their money is their own business, wouldn't you agree? Edited May 20, 2014 by keninsc
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Yep. And sometimes they're missing a payoff that the evidence says is right in front of them. There'll be a lot of folks wondering why they did what they did and thought what they thought, if the evidence says what it pretty clearly seems to say, based on the two factors on which science interprets such things. Edited May 20, 2014 by DWA
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) Evidence is often misinterpreted, that's why innocent people go to jail. .....and for every bit of evidence that there is now, that evidence can be and has been proven to be faked. Maybe not all of it, but enough that finding a footprint or a broken tree doesn't make me wonder. However, I'm still looking. The reason I'm looking now is not because I've seen a Bigfoot but two of my friends have and they confided in me about it. These weren't just a couple of guys on the web and they weren't just clowning around about it. I knew them both very well. So now I'm looking. Edited May 20, 2014 by keninsc
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 But that's not how to look at the evidence. It seems to be the way too many are stuck with doing, and it yields nothing. The odds are lottery-small - actually smaller - that a significant portion of the "live" evidence is a false positive. Nothing else has been observed like this that we haven't confirmed. The debunked stuff sits in its own distinct category, and can be readily ignored. It has no bearing on the discussion, as it's clearly manufactured. The "live" evidence...not so much.
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Well, you look at the evidence the way you wish, I assume you don't have a body or hard evidence either or you'd be jumping around about it like "Dancing Bear". However, I don't either, so the question is which of us is failing less, according to you it's me because I'm not looking at the evidence right. ......said the man who hasn't found anything yet, either. Keep looking, maybe one of us will get lucky.
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 (edited) I've actually looked as much as I need to. I'm pretty much convinced. The rest of the world might want to get on the stick. Better place to be than "knowing" it's all faked, IMHO. And AGAIN: the absence of proof means far less than nothing, particularly when no one is really looking. If it's real, and the evidence says it is, then whether we have proof matters not a whit but to us. Edited May 20, 2014 by DWA
Guest keninsc Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 The truth is the truth. Calling a spade a spade doesn't diminish it or make all spades let than what they are. Tell you what, when I bag one of the beasties, I'll email you for your snail mail address and I'll send you some hair from or something from it.
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Arm or head only accepted. Box it carefully. Actually....um, video, that'll work.
Cotter Posted May 20, 2014 Author Posted May 20, 2014 There is still no proof. You don't say? I'd have never guessed. :-)
WSA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 No doubt about it. The sighting report database is crucial reading for anyone who wants to seriously address this mystery. If we can raise and educate a generation of children to develop the critical reading skills necessary to receive the signal out of that noise, we've accomplished much. Thing is too, there is lots and lots of signal there. No surprise, I'm with DWA on that point. If I were debating this point in a public forum I would merely print out every report every filed and whack them down on the podium (which would probably break) and say, "Address these....one at a time please." So far, none here in opposition have done more than wave a hand at them all, collectively. It won't go away by doing that, but if it makes you feel any better, fine. It is a hell of a lot of work to engage with these reports, on either side of the question. I've yet to meet an opponent here who is willing to burn the calories to get educated in that regard. So, just like I stop reading any criticism by anyone who admits in the first line that they haven't yet read/seen the book/film/opinion piece, I skip their opinions too. They just don't matter. I have the sneaking suspicion though that they avoid doing it because it raises some very uncomfortable doubts that they don't have the resolve to address. Best to not look under the bed, don't you know?
Guest DWA Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 Right. Everybody looks for closure. Everybody wants to get off easy. Everybody's gunning for the quick lazy answer. Science is DIGGING and SIFTING and EVALUATING. It's hard. This is why they don't send Nobel Prizes monthly via email.
Recommended Posts