Guest Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Twinkies and Scientists. Yessssss!!!! You're on the right track. Twinkies + scientists = fat scientists with high cholesterol. That doesn't strike mas quite the right track.
Guest LarryP Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Larry one has to object to things in order to find truth. Blind acceptance gets nowhere. Without the questions there is no solution. I too am/was employed in the natural sciences. I have 100's of hours in the field seeking answers to questions demanding answers. Acceptance is the pious man's way out. Youre ignoring the context there, Crow. Stan was accusing me of objecting, when all I was doing was pointing out that Antfoot's proclamations were nothing more than subjective opinions. That's not an objection, it's just a simple observation. Additionally, there is no blind acceptance on my part at all. In fact it's the complete opposite. That's because my acceptance is based purely on first hand experience. To me it's no different than the knowledge that there's an 80 foot tall Water Oak in the woods behind my house down by the creek. I've seen it and I know it's there.
norseman Posted July 29, 2014 Admin Posted July 29, 2014 Gotta love Sasquatch "experts" that offer up zero proof!
Guest LarryP Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Gotta love Sasquatch "experts" that offer up zero proof! What type of proof would you have me provide, Norse? Would you like me to tell you the exact location where I saw him so that you and your fellow kill club brethren can go there to try to kill one?
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 What type of proof would you have me provide, Norse? Would you like me to tell you the exact location where I saw him so that you and your fellow kill club brethren can go there to try to kill one? That's a start!
Guest LarryP Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 That's a complete non-starter for me. Never going to happen. Plus it would put Norse in a significant amount of danger. And I'm not referring to BF.
Guest Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) From what then? Don't be so vague. Edit: Nevermind, I know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOyt-EhHN8A Edited July 29, 2014 by Jerrymanderer
Guest LarryP Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 No, it's more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlUcUfHkdYk
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Wait a minute a well armed human being or two is not going to have to worry about a half dozen brutes that may get pissed off about one getting downed. Does anybody really think that BF would make bonzi charges while getting picked off or shot up? Guess #1 in BF think might go something like this. Woah those guys are armed to the teeth! Maud we better get the little one's outta here, the heck with Uncle Charlie. See there's always the ruse that if you off one a million will descend on you that's why we can't pull the trigger. A seasoned BF hunter versed in the lore will have his back covered. I'd rather be the guy behind the rifle than the one in front of it.
Guest DWA Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic: I need to see the proof of the null set. And if "you can't prove a negative," which is no excuse, then you have no evidence for your proposition. Face it: the proponent scientists have an avalanche of evidence in their favor. You have none; and "you can't prove a negative" isn't an acceptable excuse. All this evidence is something. You must provide direct evidence of what that is, or "unlisted primate" is still the only bettable proposition from a scientific viewpoint. The proponents are ahead of the skeptics by way more than the murder rule on this one. Science says, look for the ape. Whether scientists understand that or not...Science does. Scientists constantly misunderstand their trade, understandable in that most of them are technicians adept in a narrow field, not true scientists. Their relation to the true scientist is the same as the VW mechanic's to the Ferrari design head. (You can prove a negative. Watch me, world! 2+2 does not equal 5.) Edited July 29, 2014 by DWA
David NC Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) DWA it is more like 8.5 ft tall + clearing 50 yards of rough terrain in the pitch dark does not equal human. Did not realize the distance and time thing till just now when I converted it on google that is 30.09 mph which is outside human range by itself not counting the rough terrain and darkness. These are real life observations and measurements. Edited July 30, 2014 by David NC 1
Guest DWA Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 ^^^^And many, many more like that: well beyond the capability of humans, but no particular great shakes for a wild animal. Sure, they're all bionic suit guys with night vision gear. Uh huh. Gotcha.
norseman Posted July 30, 2014 Admin Posted July 30, 2014 What type of proof would you have me provide, Norse? Would you like me to tell you the exact location where I saw him so that you and your fellow kill club brethren can go there to try to kill one? That's entirely up to you Larry. But providing some evidence of your claims would be needed first. And more importantly? Would help you back up your claims here And elsewhere. And I'am not even remotely worried about hillbillies......
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic: I need to see the proof of the null set. And if "you can't prove a negative," which is no excuse, then you have no evidence for your proposition. Face it: the proponent scientists have an avalanche of evidence in their favor. You have none; and "you can't prove a negative" isn't an acceptable excuse. All this evidence is something. You must provide direct evidence of what that is, or "unlisted primate" is still the only bettable proposition from a scientific viewpoint. The proponents are ahead of the skeptics by way more than the murder rule on this one. Science says, look for the ape. Whether scientists understand that or not...Science does. Scientists constantly misunderstand their trade, understandable in that most of them are technicians adept in a narrow field, not true scientists. Their relation to the true scientist is the same as the VW mechanic's to the Ferrari design head. (You can prove a negative. Watch me, world! 2+2 does not equal 5.) The null set is easy to illustrate observe. Until proof is obtained the set shown will remain the empty set. The set is demonstrated. A second set is demonstrated to show that sets of actual things can be populated with those known things. Edited July 30, 2014 by Crowlogic
Recommended Posts