Guest DWA Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 Your last sentence is the core of bigfoot skepticism: I don't read any of this, but I can tell you what it says. And can consider my excuses - like having a life, which you may or may not know others here do - sufficient cover. I have a life too. So I don't spend it going on websites where I tackle informed people from a scant information base. And you still haven't told me why I shouldn't take the scientists who have applied directly relevant science to this topic over you. Like Bonehead74, I'm astonished at the stuff some people who think they know it all about this don't read. Well, maybe not so astonished as it is typical.
Guest Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 You should take a scientist's word for his area of study over mine. I assume the scientists in question have studied sufficiently about evolution and ecology as well as bigfoot reports and ancient tales. Unfortunately, some of them do not strike me as having studied outlying subject matters that apply to their chosen studies. A more rounded education would enable these scientists to rule out some of the excess reports that do not make sense from an ecological or evolutionary view.
Guest DWA Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) ^^^^Actually, I think that ruling out "excess" and focusing on the significant consistencies is precisely what the proponent scientists have done, and why I go with them. I started getting interested in this when I saw the startling depth, volume, and ecological and evolutionary consistency of continent-wide reports. When I read Krantz, Bindernagel and Meldrum, I saw scientists with spot-on expertise coming to the same conclusions. That's not telling me what I want to believe; that is saying something that makes sense. After having applied a lot more scientific chops to it than I have. My views were - by substantial study and expertise - corroborated. That's how one knows whom to back in a scientific debate. It is in fact the only logical way. (I am very NOT into the skeptical canard that proponents haven't studied peripheral topics enough. When the field demands a primatologist, one is wasting time looking for a shrink. Particularly when any shrink worth his salt would back what the scientists are saying. Everything we know about human nature says that an animal is producing this evidence. Because humans just don't.) Edited August 18, 2014 by DWA
Midnight Owl Posted August 19, 2014 Author Posted August 19, 2014 Maybe I'm wrong about this because its just a wild guess and assumption, but could there be government plants on this forum who's only purpose is to stir the pot of contention with ignorant, uninformed remarks direct towards us who have been there and done that! I don't care about someone sitting behind a keyboard spewing out wit and intellect, who wasn't out there with me in the field, telling me what is, or what is not out there! I have seen these subjects for myself on multiple occasions and enjoy sharing it with interested folks, plain and simple! These actions take from, rather than contribute to this forum...again, just my opinion folks... 2
Guest Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 What makes you think we government types, er, non government types, ahem, do not contribute to the pot stirring and interest level of bigfoot? Our work with ufos has been enormously successful. : )
dmaker Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) ^^^^Actually, I think that ruling out "excess" and focusing on the significant consistencies is precisely what the proponent scientists have done, and why I go with them. I started getting interested in this when I saw the startling depth, volume, and ecological and evolutionary consistency of continent-wide reports. When I read Krantz, Bindernagel and Meldrum, I saw scientists with spot-on expertise coming to the same conclusions. That's not telling me what I want to believe; that is saying something that makes sense. After having applied a lot more scientific chops to it than I have. My views were - by substantial study and expertise - corroborated. That's how one knows whom to back in a scientific debate. It is in fact the only logical way. (I am very NOT into the skeptical canard that proponents haven't studied peripheral topics enough. When the field demands a primatologist, one is wasting time looking for a shrink. Particularly when any shrink worth his salt would back what the scientists are saying. Everything we know about human nature says that an animal is producing this evidence. Because humans just don't.) LOL. Uhm, humans have been proven to produce this evidence numerous times. Exactly zero evidence has ever been proven to come from a bigfoot. You sure like to paint only one piece of the picture and call it a masterpiece, don't you? I understand, now, your lack of objectivity. You arrived at a conclusion and then went looking for someone who agreed with you. Edited August 19, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 (edited) ^^^dmaker, I am not content to wait for you to finally get this. There are words for this in polite society, and they are not polite. As those of you keeping up are well aware: the hoaxed stuff isn't even under discussion here. Can one of you explain this to Jaws here? I'm getting tired. Edited August 19, 2014 by DWA
Guest DWA Posted August 19, 2014 Posted August 19, 2014 Well, going back to the OP, I think he could very well be right, and it's because the tried and true modus operandi of bigfoot skepticism appeals to non-critical thinkers, which is the great majority of the hoi polloi about the great majority of topics. dmaker may be illustrating this for instructive purposes: set out to 'debunk;' cherrypick ad nauseam; resolutely avoid advanced thinking or cogent thinkers who disagree with you in any relevant discipline; appeal to the peanut gallery; and above all DO NOT ENGAGE OPPOSING POINT OF VIEW; you lack the ammunition. Simply act as if you didn't hear what they said. There could be a million sasquatch in each state...and the way people tend, in the mass, to think, of which bigfoot skepticism is one of the more outstanding examples, would ensure that we wouldn't know it. We just don't want this to be real, so it isn't. Reverse pareidolia. Voila. The funny thing about bigfoot skepticism is: they're the ones most sure a specimen would solve this - only we shouldn't be looking but waiting for one to walk to a hillbilly and give himself up - and they're the ones most sure to make that not happen, if that's possible. Totally on topic. You love my talent for this, just say so.
dmaker Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) ^^^dmaker, I am not content to wait for you to finally get this. There are words for this in polite society, and they are not polite. As those of you keeping up are well aware: the hoaxed stuff isn't even under discussion here. Can one of you explain this to Jaws here? I'm getting tired. Good, perhaps you will stop posting the same point in every other thread on this board ad nauseam. That would be lovely. The hoaxed stuff is most certainly under discussion here, particularly so since some of it has been proven to fool even the bigfoot experts. So yeah, it's under discussion whether you are content or not. DWA, I am never going to agree with you based on the current literature and current (lack of) evidence. That is simply the way it is. If that makes you discontented, well that is just icing on the cake. Edited August 20, 2014 by dmaker 1
Guest DWA Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ^^^See? That's what it's like. And no, the hoaxed stuff is not under discussion here; the authenticity of the PGF has pretty much been certified; and the only things that have fooled one or two experts shouldn't have, and are quickly tossed from the discussion to make room for the avalanche of stuff for which "hoax" simply ain't gonna cut it as the wave-off. Oh. Skookum? Elk? NO. KEEP UP. People can discuss what they want. The only problem is whether they are keeping up. In some cases, clearly no. But we appreciate your checking in.
dmaker Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) The PGF has hardly been certified. Get some perspective please before you make bold claims like that one. The one or two experts that were fooled were folks like Krantz, whom you seem to adore. So you cannot say humans do not make this evidence when there are numerous examples of human fabricated evidence that passed the muster of folks even like Krantz. Your claim was incorrect. That this bothers you so much when I simply point that little fact out, is very telling. It's hilarious how you say "keeping up" when what you really mean is "agree with me". Edited August 20, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ^^^Bothered! Mais non! Even your appearance has improved after that latest row of teeth moved in. Nope, hoaxed evidence, whoever is involved whoever was fooled for how long, gone and out of the discussion. Now. Prove to me what the mountain of untested evidence says. The only thing "very telling" here is how far behind you've gotten. But I don't have to "tell" a thing; you take care of that nicely. Thank you. All the teaching aids I can get.
dmaker Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) "Prove to me what the mountain of untested evidence says." DWA What untested evidence are you talking about? Surely you must mean evidence that can be scientifically tested and verified? As in biological samples? Where is this mountain of untested samples? You cannot mean anecdotes since everyone knows that anecdotes cannot be tested and verified by science. So we must be talking about evidence that is amenable to scientific testing and verification. So, again, what is the mountain of "testable" evidence? This is the part of the discussion where you display your shocking lack of understanding of what scientific evidence is and confuse investigate with verify. Others will try to explain to you the nature of your error, and you will drop the point briefly only to pop up on some other thread claiming how anecdotes can be scientifically verified and falsified. Just like, you know, real evidence. etc, etc, etc, Edited August 20, 2014 by dmaker
Will Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) You two seem to be drawn to each other in some weird way. Edited August 20, 2014 by will
Incorrigible1 Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 .....the authenticity of the PGF has pretty much been certified........ Citation?
Recommended Posts