Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 If you have seen a sasquatch, you know far more than any skeptic, right there, and the evidence supports that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Why should I care about Don Keating. It doesn't change anything for me. He means nothing to me. People shouldn't rely on strangers for their views and beliefs on any subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Hey the head in the sand position is all good if you want to just believe something. Its all part of the situational comedy known as bigfooting. I think the Twilight Zone theme should play when you log on to this forum. And DWA, yes I know you think you know more than any skeptic, but really you dont. Edited October 22, 2014 by Darrell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Don Keating is irrelevant. I do not know who he is; and I demonstrably know a lot more about this than any skeptic here. What you 'pesky' skeptics do is focus on a circus, of which Keating is obviously a part. Exactly how big is the circus? At least to me it appears huge compared to the sincere research efforts. Ratio of 20 to 1 in favor of circus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) What head in the sand ? LOL, What he says and does has nothing to do with me Darrell. Edited October 22, 2014 by sheri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I also dont think Mr Green's database of sightings has anything to do with applied science so not sure why its in that sub forum. Such are the mysteries of the BFF. Which subforum do you suggest, Darrell? Data collection is part of scientific procedure, is it not? If so, at some point the data has to be applied, doesn't it? There are many mysteries on the BFF... and some of them are also members and their behavior on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Exactly how big is the circus? At least to me it appears huge compared to the sincere research efforts. Ratio of 20 to 1 in favor of circus? More like 99.9% to 0.1%. Just look around the forum and see how little of the discussion is about the sincere research efforts, probably the most important of which (NAWAC) got driven off by the circus-chasers bipto had to wade through. Volume does not equal quality; it's why diamonds and gold are what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 ^Exactly my point. Sightings have nothing to do with science, applied or otherwise. They are not even evidence until the specific sighting is investigated and coraborated by source evidence. That happens, um, never. So what you have is a data base of sigtings that proponents decide to believe with no vetting and then, again, decide is evidence that their belief system is valid. Thats not science, thats a cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 People also don't understand science and find it boring. In this topic it's where all the fun is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Which subforum do you suggest, Darrell? Data collection is part of scientific procedure, is it not? If so, at some point the data has to be applied, doesn't it? There are many mysteries on the BFF... and some of them are also members and their behavior on the forum. Denialism = No mystery. Why they choose to hang out on a Bigfoot discussion forum = BIG MYSTERY My guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I have a 10 year old nephew that is a 'true believer', it doesn't surprise me he doesn't know Don Keating....not at all. When I was 10 I believed in Batman, that my bike was the fastest on the block, and that my dad could beat up anybody. None of those were true so I dont know what that has to do with anything. Are 10 yr olds now the ones that determine bigfoot is real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) ^Exactly my point. Sightings have nothing to do with science, applied or otherwise. They are not even evidence until the specific sighting is investigated and coraborated by source evidence. That happens, um, never. So what you have is a data base of sigtings that proponents decide to believe with no vetting and then, again, decide is evidence that their belief system is valid. Thats not science, thats a cult. Not true. What vetting, exactly, have *skeptics* done of the sightings? "Hey, you can't ask us to do that! That's impossible!" No it isn't. What do the sightings represent? "People can lie hoax and be mistaken, you know" isn't an explanation. It's a wave of the hand. The sightings, particularly when combined with the footprints, but either of them alone, really, when taken as a whole represent one of two things: 1. The work of a master primatologist/ecologist/special effects guy, or 2. An animal. Or 3. Something else, as soon as it is proven to be something else. The 'vetting' that needs to be done now is what NAWAC (as was Patterson) are engaged in: field time to corroborate what they represent, which appears to be an animal. Coming here for thousands of posts to deny there's anything here, people? THAT'S a cult. Edited October 22, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Moderator Statement: This thread is devolving into name calling and may end up getting truly personal, just as the "Skeptics" topic did. "Cults" is inappropriate, and it won't be tolerated. I'm getting ready to bust out the warnings if this doesn't cease. The staff doesn't have the time to deal with mess of this type, and worse. If you can't post accordingly, you'll be unable to post at all. You've all been warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) oopsie. *deleted* Edited October 22, 2014 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Hiflier - Great job on uncovering this! Hits a little close to home for me with Keating based in Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts