Guest DWA Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 (edited) No, not really. But one has to be thinking about this. One can get a lot of answers without spending time in the woods. Reading and thinking, the majority of the work done in science, are required. But then, spending a lot of time in the woods, like I do, makes the answers easier to get. One would not expect anything "new" in reports, just the same old consistency, the same old people seeing the same old thing, a gigantic hominid primate. One would wonder when people would start paying attention, but then, one already is. 20 hours ago, MIB said: Wow, must have gotten under your skin. You don't like that mirror even a little bit, do you? That only happens when denial is under attack. Your "contributions" that you're so proud of amount to plagiarizing others' work and repackaging it as if it is something new. The fact is, while you've been tooting your own horn on the internet doing nothing but typing, I just got back from 5 days in the field with a large group doing real research, expanding my connections, and brainstorming with the people who are doing the real work to see if I can help with their efforts. If talk is all you can contribute, well, best of luck to you. I'm done with this discussion 'til there's something of substance added. MIB Um, yeah. Work is being done here, real scientific work, and it ain't just 'opinions.' Science don't work that way. Edited June 13, 2017 by DWA
BigTreeWalker Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 11 hours ago, TritonTr196 said: But I can't bring myself to buy into a membership here because I get the feeling it's going to be the same on the other side also as it is here. I don't want to pay just to read more bitching back and forth. But seems to get your own research thread you gotta pay for membership. Now if someone could prove to me that it's a lot better on the other side, I would gladly pay for a membership. Triton, I can't prove anything about the research section. But speaking from personal experience you have full moderation control over your posts. Although I have never had to use it. I do get questions and comments from people showing genuine interest in the subject. It's a good place to share your work. 1
ShadowBorn Posted June 13, 2017 Moderator Posted June 13, 2017 Triton It is not about buying into the membership but supporting something that you believe in. Of course people are going to have discourse about this subject. We are talking about a creature that is not going to just stand there and give us a nice picture. The same goes with killing one they are not just going to let you do it . I did it cause I gave my word that I would and that means a lot to me . It may sound like a sales pitch but it is not. The tar pit for myself would be a hell pit in fact for my self by all these sharks just swimming around while I wade. But sharing knowledge is key to understanding these creatures. This is the development of understanding and enlightment. But keeping it on a level where those who pay so that knowledge can be shared well. That is a different monster in itself. But this gives us insite to these creatures existence and this how we learn as humans. I would rather have some one critical of my findings then to have some one who is not. Reason ! To give me drive to prove them wrong. It is not about money with these creature for me or fame. I am not even sure what it is even about any more. But to hear what others have found and have experienced eases my mind and makes me feel at ease. We should be thank full to be able to experience what others have not been able too. I really do not see this forum like what you have said : " I don't want to pay just to read more bitching back and forth. ) I see this forum more as a highly critical forum. That has a lot of intelligent people with intelligent minds. That are looking for a single answer whether these creatures exist or not. I have always supported this critical thinking and have always challenged it. crit·i·cal think·ing noun noun: critical thinking the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. "professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students Again I need to stop ranting since it is hot in Michigan and have had to many Modelo's. 2
Guest DWA Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 On 6/12/2017 at 5:23 AM, Starling said: You're quite right. That is precisely my position. In lieu of further evidence that doesn't fall into the ambiguous category I'm happy to sit back with a beer and enjoy my theory which completely covers all the bases to my satisfaction.Maybe why you aren't a scientist. If assumptions uninvestigated do it for you, you aren't. As I said I have read those studies. They talk about something that couldn't be more obviously not going on in these reports, but you'd have to read them to know that. In the meantime the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You can't expect people to do their own research when you continually fail to address the obvious cracks in your own. If there are cracks in mine you have failed to identify them. I have skewered yours with ruthless efficiency. Maybe why you aren't a scientist, because they know that all theses in a scientific discussion require the backing of evidence, including the comprehensive false positive, and that patterns like those seen here demand investigation because real things are the only things that have evidence patterns like this. Folding one's arms in the presence of this and saying burden of proof is on YOU is not something a scientist does. As a matter of fact, the mainstream's reaction to this is the foundation of my assertion that your degree doesn't matter if you can't think like a scientist on something outside your narrow field of expertise. The mainstream's reaction to the sasquatch evidence marks their approach as an embarrassment to science. But it's not really surprising: most who call themselves 'scientists' pay only lip service to objectivity, and are primarily drilled on doing sums and memorizing canon. Their deficiencies come into full view when something challenges that canon. We've seen this over and over and over in the history of science. On 6/12/2017 at 5:23 AM, Starling said: If you have singularly failed to persuade others of the merits in your argument then perhaps it is your argument that is lacking?That would be a negative. No one has shown me one thing that's wrong about my argument, and that is the only way to change a person's mind. My argument must go against the evidence for that to be the problem, but it goes with it, and the people who can't see that, well, I got nuthin'. On 6/12/2017 at 5:23 AM, Starling said: Your principle point seems to be that there is an embarrassment of riches evidence-wise that's simply being ignored. If that's the case then this is really an issue of perspective as it always, always comes back to the quality of the evidence. Which is always assessed in the aggregate, and says here: you find an animal when you follow this. On 6/12/2017 at 5:23 AM, Starling said: I'm happy that there are Bigfoot proponents. But I'm also quite happy to live with there being no Bigfoots. You want there to be a Bigfoot? Then I suggest YOU do a much better job persuading me.Wait. MY PERSUADING YOU is necessary for the thing to exist? Who made you God? Might want to examine the holes in your thinking, never mind the wholes in mine. If I have determined your argument vacant in its entirety you are one of the people I don't need to think about anymore. I'm totally happy; the animal exists regardless of what people think about it. If you see a mountain when others recognise a molehill when they see one you're going to be hard pushed to make them see otherwise.They don't recognize what they're seeing. Because they aren't looking, and why come here if you aren't interested, which you aren't?
TritonTr196 Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 4 hours ago, ShadowBorn said: Triton It is not about buying into the membership but supporting something that you believe in. Of course people are going to have discourse about this subject. We are talking about a creature that is not going to just stand there and give us a nice picture. The same goes with killing one they are not just going to let you do it . I did it cause I gave my word that I would and that means a lot to me . It may sound like a sales pitch but it is not. The tar pit for myself would be a hell pit in fact for my self by all these sharks just swimming around while I wade. But sharing knowledge is key to understanding these creatures. This is the development of understanding and enlightment. But keeping it on a level where those who pay so that knowledge can be shared well. That is a different monster in itself. But this gives us insite to these creatures existence and this how we learn as humans. I would rather have some one critical of my findings then to have some one who is not. Reason ! To give me drive to prove them wrong. It is not about money with these creature for me or fame. I am not even sure what it is even about any more. But to hear what others have found and have experienced eases my mind and makes me feel at ease. We should be thank full to be able to experience what others have not been able too. I really do not see this forum like what you have said : " I don't want to pay just to read more bitching back and forth. ) I see this forum more as a highly critical forum. That has a lot of intelligent people with intelligent minds. That are looking for a single answer whether these creatures exist or not. I have always supported this critical thinking and have always challenged it. crit·i·cal think·ing noun noun: critical thinking the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment. "professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students Again I need to stop ranting since it is hot in Michigan and have had to many Modelo's. I support every thing I do, whether it's my job or a hobby. It just happens to be my life long hobbies and my jobs have given me great understanding of certain things when dealing with Bigfoot. You wouldn't think being a professional musician since my teens would give me a huge knowledge base when it comes to Bigfoot, but it has in researching them. I know all about critical thinking, I spent four years in Anthropology in college, until I found out that there is no life or money to be made in that profession so I changed to something else that would provide an income. I did work as an archeologist for 14 years for three states and the NPS. So I know about critical thinking... Nice, we had Rolling Rocks all day long. I had to drink mine outside in the heat standing next to the smoker. Everyone else inside in the ac watching me sweat profusely standing next to a hot smoker during the last six hours of the 14 hour smoke..
Twist Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 I can back up SB's accounts, I'm in SW MI and it's been a brisk 92 today, beers are flowing.....
Guest Starling Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 17 hours ago, DWA said: They don't recognize what they're seeing. Because they aren't looking, and why come here if you aren't interested, which you aren't? 17 hours ago, DWA said: As I said I have read those studies. 17 hours ago, DWA said: No one has shown me one thing that's wrong about my argument, I come here because I'm interested in the nature of belief. So your take on this is particularly fascinating to me. You claim most, if not all, scientists lack the open-mindedness necessary to see the truth which is so very plain to you. And yet your stance is so utterly rigid and inflexible that the irony inherit in your position is ultimately what's most impressive about it. All the hand waving or capital letters in the world cannot conceal how hollow it is when you're unwilling to show what all scientists must in the face of any dialogue with nature. Humility. So let me just recap your posture here: You're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You're correctly informed and those who fail to recognise that are ill-informed. You've read the correct and relevant books and literature and, now that I mention it, you've also read all of the literature that runs counter to your own convictions...and found it...all of it....the huge mass I've been quietly pointing to, to be wanting and easily dismissed. You skewer your opponents ruthlessly and with great efficiency while they fail to identify even the smallest of cracks in your arguments. And It's reasonable for you to lecture on the subject of the scientific method...because...well, just...because. The reason the trail cams have never once captured an unambiguous photo of a Bigfoot is very clearly x, y and z. You're not, in short, wrong. And the chances of you being wrong are so slight that you're not even going to glance in that direction. You're right. And anyone who suggests they're not going to take your word for it doesn't know the first thing about what they're talking about. Well, it's obvious to me and, I'm sure, many others here, that that's about as far away from a scientific attitude as it's possible to get. Real scientists demand real data. End of. No amount of poring over tall tales and plaster casts and no amount of chest beating is going to change that. No quantity of anecdotal information is going to be heavy enough to tip the scales in the direction of existence without something more concrete. In fact the more stories and more plaster cast footprints you acquire the more the balance is in favour of psycho-social. And, short of an actual giant hominid, there's nothing you can do about it. Moreover, there appears to be nothing more you're capable of doing about it. Your conviction is just that...your conviction... and I can see the big (very obviously) man-shaped hole in it even if you can't.
Guest DWA Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Starling said: I come here because I'm interested in the nature of belief. So your take on this is particularly fascinating to me.Right there, an unscientific approach. You clearly haven't assessed the evidence if you think you can toss it off in favor of studies that don't address it. You claim most, if not all, scientists lack the open-mindedness necessary to see the truth which is so very plain to you. And yet your stance is so utterly rigid and inflexible that the irony inherit in your position is ultimately what's most impressive about it. No one pronouncing negatively on this topic can back it up with an intelligent assessment of the evidence. (Really? SHOW ME ONE; I keep asking you people this and receive The Sound of Crickets as a response.) I am as flexible and questing as any individual you will meet on the internet. How do you think I got to my position on this? (Just that, you clearly don't.) Your frustration comes from a refusal to address something that conflicts with your worldview. So you start slinging brickbats instead of assessing the opposing position. All the hand waving or capital letters in the world cannot conceal how hollow it is when you're unwilling to show what all scientists must in the face of any dialogue with nature. Humility.Says the possessor of as rigid, inflexible and frankly, baldly arrogant a position as exists in all social dialogue. Funny, actually. No. It IS. Quote So let me just recap your posture here: You're right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You're correctly informed and those who fail to recognise that are ill-informed. You've read the correct and relevant books and literature and, now that I mention it, you've also read all of the literature that runs counter to your own convictions...and found it...all of it....the huge mass I've been quietly pointing to, to be wanting and easily dismissed. You skewer your opponents ruthlessly and with great efficiency while they fail to identify even the smallest of cracks in your arguments. And It's reasonable for you to lecture on the subject of the scientific method...because...well, just...because.Precisely. You aren't paying attention; lack the questing mind of the scientist; and that paragraph is another example. How many times do I need to lay out the price of admission to this most exclusive club of scientific minds? (And the easiest to enter) Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Quote The reason the trail cams have never once captured an unambiguous photo of a Bigfoot is very clearly x, y and z. Or, you know, what YOU say it is, without thinking about it. Difference? Coming from a far deeper understanding apparently of **all** required disciplines, I've thought about it. You just insist on being insulting. You know, don't you, that you are simply providing a brick wall for me to talk to, correct? Quote You're not, in short, wrong. And the chances of you being wrong are so slight that you're not even going to glance in that direction. In the direction of something that my careful application - TO YOUR VERY THESIS - tells me is the wrong tree at this juncture? Why go there? Do you LIKE the wrong tree? Some dogs do. You're right.I know. Your attention to the evidence whenever you feel you have headspace. You guys that come to this with embryo mind fully formed but never developed are a riot. And anyone who suggests they're not going to take your word for it doesn't know the first thing about what they're talking about.When they DEMONSTRATE IT? Well duh! Well, it's obvious to me and, I'm sure, many others here, that that's about as far away from a scientific attitude as it's possible to get.Opposite, and done. But that's where thinking gets me. And not you, not on this. Real scientists demand real data. End of. THEY HAVE DEMONSTRABLE TONS. INCLUDING SCIENTISTS WRITING BOOKS VOUCHING FOR IT. I use old-people type because you apparently can't read stuff like that. ^^^THAT WORK??? No amount of poring over tall tales and plaster casts and no amount of chest beating is going to change that. No quantity of anecdotal information is going to be heavy enough to tip the scales in the direction of existence without something more concrete. In fact the more stories and more plaster cast footprints you acquire the more the balance is in favour of psycho-social. And, short of an actual giant hominid, there's nothing you can do about it. Moreover, there appears to be nothing more you're capable of doing about it.Yeah. So utterly rigid and inflexible am I. And YOU? THE MORE EVIDENCE, THE MORE I AM RIGHT IN DENYING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!NEW CONTENDER FOR FUNNIEST THING I'VE READ ON THIS SITE! Your conviction is just that...your conviction... and I can see the big (very obviously) man-shaped hole in it even if you can't.Said every 'scientist' right before he realized he was wrong, ever. Please show more thought with your next post because I am starting to see only one (hint) way out of this circle jerk. (It is gonna be SO INTERESTING to see what you people have to say about this when the proof happens. Hint: it'll be a self-indictment.) (Get interested in animals, and the outdoors. Then get out more. That'll help.) Edited June 14, 2017 by DWA
Martin Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Starling said: You've read the correct and relevant books and literature ........................ His favorite and only reference is Bindernagel. Edited June 14, 2017 by Martin
Guest DWA Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 50 minutes ago, Starling said: You've read the correct and relevant books and literature and, now that I mention it, you've also read all of the literature that runs counter to your own convictions...and found it...all of it....the huge mass I've been quietly pointing to, to be wanting and easily dismissed. (Worth pounding hard on.) I'd think y'all stoodious would be able to point me to something relevant backing your point of view, eh? I just showed you - AT LEAST THREE TIMES THAT I CAN THINK OF off the top of my head - the very simple reason your psycho-cotic studies don't touch what we are talking about here. I've pointed you to things you refuse to even read, or think about properly, one or the other. Got something that might say something relevant about this field that disagrees with me? I think there might be no limit to what I'd bet that you don't. and...cue the [crickets]...
Incorrigible1 Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Bravo, Starling. Wish I could plus your insightful posting a dozen more times. I look forward to more words of wisdom from you! 2
Guest DWA Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 There is nothing to convince a man he's right...like listening to someone clearly wrong who just knows he's right.
Guest Starling Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 24 minutes ago, DWA said: Said every 'scientist' right before he realized he was wrong, ever. Please show more thought with your next post because I am starting to see only one (hint) way out of this circle jerk. (It is gonna be SO INTERESTING to see what you people have to say about this when the proof happens. Hint: it'll be a self-indictment.) (Get interested in animals, and the outdoors. Then get out more. That'll help.) I've stated repeatedly that I may be wrong. I've also stated that I would actually like to be and that any embarrassment about being so would pale into insignificance next to the wonder of a newly-certified giant in the wilderness. So no arrogance and no insults in my arguments. Your own ground so impervious and solid that you're happy to underline your posts with both? This suggests more than a frisson of a fissure to me.
Guest DWA Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) You have *shown* repeatedly that you don't really think there is any possibility you are wrong. And as predicted: this post breaks no new ground and fails to note the overweening arrogance that saturates every word you have written about this here. Sorry, but no effort to get this - when there is so very extremely much to get - tells me all I need to know. Sorry, but coming on here just to tell people they're wrong - and not showing effort to get there from the evidence - is self-indictment. So...circle jerk? Like I said, getting down to *one* option here, the one I exercise when talking to brick walls doesn't move them. Or, you know, you could start assessing the evidence. But that is always *your* choice. Edited June 14, 2017 by DWA
Recommended Posts