Incorrigible1 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 DWA, evidently "scientists" don't consider the reports and "evidence" you do worthy. Hmm, there are "scientists" and then there's you. It seems one of the two doesn't compute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 ^^^^If profound, please advise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Show us a body or proof positive DNA of BF? If there is such an abundance of evidence, as you claim DWA, proof should be easily attainable and presentable to the available scientists, and the world. Your redundancy, which has far exceeded it's life expectancy, of scientists not accepting BF, is mute without solid evidence for them to evaluate. So far, all evidence provided to scientists have proven NO BF exists! Please provide otherwise? Edited October 31, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I wouldn't say "proven NO BF exists" but rather "no proof BF exists" One cannot prove a negative no matter how little evidence exists to support an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Once again, all unwarranted assumptions and we-should-haves and they're-seeing-thises aside: if you cannot address the scientists who are telling us that this evidence represents an unlisted primate, we don't really have anything to talk about. (And no, your scientist buddies who are doing the same thing you are don't count any more than you do. I go for the people who show their work.) And no, you can't make toss-off assumptions and waves of the hand about the scientists either. Address the science or do the only thing that really makes sense: join the chorus demanding resolution of this biological puzzle on which you are, says here, currently wasting your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well, I wish scientists would take the subject more seriously but they have to have something they can put their hands on and evaluate. As yet the BF community has failed to give them such. Also DWA, I'm having a hard time discerning where you fall in your belief or disbelief of the subject. I read one post and think OK DWA believes. I read another and think OK DWA disbelieves. I don't care whether you believe or not as that is a personal decision we all have to make and I will respect either. Just don't get the double-speak as it seems too convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I don't understand how anyone reading my posts could have a problem with my extreme consistency on this topic. Contrast with Crowlogic, to name only one, whom I believed a total denier until now I understand he's had a sighting. Wha...? Here it is, in a sentence: The evidence could not make a stronger case than it does for a full-court scientific press for proof. Everything else with this pattern of evidence science has proven. (OK, two sentences.) Belief is nothing in science. I follow evidence, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well, as incredulous as I find myself relating to you and your posts I will take you at your word I guess. I don't think I would call either you or your posts *extremely consistent*. You seem to go all over the place. But whatever floats your boat I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted October 31, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 31, 2014 You seem to go all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted October 31, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 31, 2014 To masterbarber and HRPuffnstuff both: It seems to me if you think that then you haven't been paying attention. Analogy might be politics. If you're somewhere in the political center, you might be taking a comparative right wing position when arguing with someone to your left, a comparatively left wing position arguing with someone to your right, **and be saying exactly the same thing both times**. DWA seems consistent to me. He appears to be saying there's enough evidence that the scientific establishment should be taking a closer look at it than they are. That's not the same as saying they do or do not exist, it really is, as he says, about the evidence. When a scoftic claims there's no evidence, he says "wait, look at this ..." and when a believer says they exist, he says "show your proof." That looks pretty consistent to me. It may not be polarized the way you think it should be, but it is consistent. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masterbarber Posted October 31, 2014 Admin Share Posted October 31, 2014 I agree, he is consistent 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Haaa ... Lol! Somebody's yanking your chain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I really find lots of people need to sit themselves down and think about this a lot more than they are, particularly given the posts they are investing. Come on, people. "Proof or trash?" has demonstrably gotten this field nowhere. If you are getting no more than what some of you say you are getting out of my posts, there's some application you need to do that you just aren't doing. I have seen from few people here - I have from some, but a small percentage of those posting - sufficient understanding of the evidence to support their position on this subject. If you have seen one, then you know. If you haven't, well, there are ways to get to an opinion, but they require some mental elbow grease. I see a whole lot more wanting to win an argument here than I see trying to deepen one's understanding. Unless you're here for the latter, you aren't taking the subject seriously, no matter what you might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustCurious Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Way back when I was 16ish, I checked out 2 books from the library. One was on UFOs and the other was on bigfoot. At that early age, I decided the bigfoot sightings were probably more likely because of the consistency in what people reported from all over the US. The long hair, brown or black, taller than 7 feet, walking upright, massive torso, apelike facial features, strange gait and long arms were consistent regardless of the circumstances of the sighting itself. The fact that the reports were geographically widespread and occurred at a time when not everyone was touched by mass media lent even more credibility. It was the lack of consistency in the UFO sighting reports that made me think they were less likely; those reports were all over the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) More evidential confirmation of "NO BF" evidence. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/10/us/monsters-in-america/?hpt=hp_c2 Edited October 31, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts