It Will Not Make Any Difference

[dmaker]

Not at all, will. There could be other factors at play. 

^^^^In your world.  The rest of us kinda go with that 'evidence' thing...

Yes, again with the evidence thing. So I am simply asking you to provide examples where the testable evidence has been tested and supported the claim. Not a terribly complicated request. Especially for one so steeped in the evidence as you claim to be. So rather than respond with empty phrases, how about you pony up and provide examples that I asked for?I will take your failure to do so, compounded by what you consider to be clever phrases, to be evidence that you cannot comply with a simple request to demonstrate where the evidence has supported the claim.

 

I am sure there will be nothing but barely pithy phrases to follow lacking, any evidence whatsoever.

Edited August 24, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, will, one thing I think dmaker has made pretty clear is that when it comes to this topic he tends not to think those opinions all the way through.

 

There is really no way to avoid what one is saying about eyewitnesses if one has a negative opinion on this topic.  They're being denigrated and called liars fools and sick.  The only plea one could make to thinking anything else is utter ignorance, which isn't exactly gonna carry the day in these little scientific discussions.  Now there is someone on here who is apparently prone to constant hallucinations, and thinks that is therefore a handy dandy explanation of all sightings.  He is the only person I have ever heard of with such an affliction; I'd be willing to bet there aren't ten others walking around (driving around shooting guns around etc.) in the US; and if you are telling me that all of them have chosen to hallucinate Ph.D's in primatology I just have to laugh louder than you've ever heard at you.

 

(And if you think that's not what you're saying then the only other plea you can make is utter ignorance, which isn't exactly gonna carry the day in these little scientific discussions.)

[dmaker]

Scientific discussions, as you say, usually involve evidence. And you have once again failed to respond with evidence, but chose to instead disparage the opinions of others.  You need to start bringing some evidence to the table. Actual evidence. Until you decide to do that, you are simply blowing rhetoric into the wind. Get some substance and maybe then we can have an actual scientific discussion. 

[Will]

 There could be other factors at play. 

 

Such as?

[Guest DWA]

dmaker having a poor grasp of what's going on, which copious evidence backs.

Note he's going with "no proof" again...his single pony trick, and utterly and couldn't be more completely irrelevant to the discussion and that's accepted by everyone (else) here.

 

Except Squatchy, who thinks he can fool scientists with a rug.

[chelefoot]

I don't know if BF exists or not, but in my opinion, saying that it absolutely doesn't exist because science has not been able to test and verify that it does, is no different or any less ridiculous than saying that a knock in the woods had to have been a BF, because nothing else knocks on trees in the woods.

[Incorrigible1]

Cute, DWA. You've been asked for proof or evidence of your assertions. Where is it?

 

More hot air.

[Will]

I don't know if BF exists or not, but in my opinion, saying that it absolutely doesn't exist because science has not been able to test and verify that it does, is no different or any less ridiculous than saying that a knock in the woods had to have been a BF, because nothing else knocks on trees in the woods.

Exactly, some outstanding people on here who seem to be trust worthy. Of course its not 100%, but it keeps me coming back!

[Guest DWA]

I am totally not sure what to say about anyone who thinks that if scientists haven't verified it it doesn't exist.

 

When I listen to both the witnesses and the proponent scientists I find them, as a body, far easier to believe than those who disagree with them for one reason:

 

They simply make more sense!

[dmaker]

I'm not asking you for a bigfoot body, but some example where testable evidence has been tested and produced a result that could support the bigfoot claim. Something like unknown primate, for example, as a result of DNA testing of an alleged bigfoot sample.

That is not proof. As I said, not asking you for a specimen, but any example of testable evidence that has supported the claim. This should not be that hard for such an accomplished self proclaimed scientist as yourself.

[Guest DWA]

No, the evidence there is is stronger than that.  It has been tested; the tests support a hominid primate.  Compared to what's already been vetted, test tubes mean nothing.

 

Animal's real.  Evidence says so.  It's been pointed out to you every which way such a thing could be.  Gotta give up, now.

 

(Oh.  You're right.  It wasn't hard.)

 

As a scientist, I feel obliged to point out to you that it does not matter, one bit, what a person who does not understand the topic under discussion thinks of the evidence.  It only matters what we scientists think.

 

(We scientists who are paying attention, that is.  The ones who aren't really aren't doing any better than you.  Or the garbageman.)

Edited August 24, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

I don't know if BF exists or not, but in my opinion, saying that it absolutely doesn't exist because science has not been able to test and verify that it does, is no different or any less ridiculous than saying that a knock in the woods had to have been a BF, because nothing else knocks on trees in the woods.

Science has been presented with testable evidence that allegedly came from bigfoot and that evidence has failed scientific testing every single time.

At what point is it rational to assume the null hypothesis to be correct? That bigfoot is a myth borne of hoaxes and human error? Perhaps another 50 years?

Edited August 24, 2014 by dmaker

[ShadowBorn]

SB, I have no belief that the creature exists. There is nothing but a complete failure of the physical evidence to support the claim. Any time testable evidence has been tested it has failed to support the bigfoot claim. Why a group of people would so willingly ignore what seems to me to be painfully obvious is beyond me. Perhaps that is the interest or question that keeps me involved here and in this topic. Not a biological question. That has been answered time and time again, but proponents refuse to accept the reality. But I do believe there is a large sociological question that remains that is pretty fascinating. 

Dmaker

A lot of us who have had encounters with these creatures have gone in this with no belief that these creatures exists. The only problem is that these encounters that we have seen had left physical evidence behind that shows a physical being or creature was involved. Yet the individual is left at the persons word which to some does not mean a thing . It is like you have said that any time testable evidence has been tested it has failed to support the claim of a individual sighting. So now we come to you asking of "why a group of people would so willingly ignore whats seems to you to be so painfully obvious is beyond you?' Well the answer should be that the sighting was of some thing that disturbed an individual so badly that it changed the way an individual once thought about our world. So yes Dmaker we are left with a biological question as well as a sociological one. Proponents refuse to accept it due to them having a hard time trying to understand their own individual sightings.

So I can not blame you for the stand that you are taking,But i do understand why you keep coming back to this forum.It is the nature of us as humans and as individuals to have curiosity. That is that fascination in us as well that keeps us coming back as well.You can now imagine how close we are as individuals to these creatures as humans as well as apes or primates. The willingness to learn what we do not have and have what we cannot see.

[Guest DWA]

Yes, but you see, dmaker, you see, dmaker, I mean, you see that chele right up at the top of the page very correctly called your central thesis as ridiculous as Boboknock?

 

Sometimes, dmaker, you see, dmaker, I mean, you must see that you make our job as scientists very, very easy.

[dmaker]

So, again DWA, where are the examples where the evidence has undergone scientific testing and the results have supported the claim?

Citations are preferred over unsupported assertions.

Edited August 24, 2014 by dmaker