Jump to content

Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?


Recommended Posts

Posted
10 minutes ago, DWA said:

99 out of 100 scientists don't even know what's going on.

 

As Wes T sez, " Looks like a claim to me. Link please."

Posted (edited)

Your faith is touching.

 

There are way too many links to list here.  You just won't open them, having been led to them by that ring in your nose innumerable times.  You also refuse to open the link the scientist always does:  the link to the sifting, sorting intellect that is always and forever the beating heart of science.

 

You skeptics *have no* links.  (You aren't even skeptical.  Skepticism is a rational stance.) Everything tells you you're wrong...except what's in your heads.

Edited by DWA
Posted
22 minutes ago, DWA said:

Your faith is touching.

 

There are way too many links to list here. 

 

Evidently not as you were quoted. 99, I believe it was. An experienced report reader such as yourself should have no issues backing your statements, eh?

Posted

99 out of 100. yep..... that's the number we're looking for. But I don't see any evidence to support the notion either way.

Posted

And even if there was evidence for the 99 it wouldn't be proof ;)

Posted

My, my, my....yet lack of evidence does not disprove either.....

Posted

What, couldn't find a joke there?

 

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 11:02 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Evidently not as you were quoted. 99, I believe it was. An experienced report reader such as yourself should have no issues backing your statements, eh?

Some people obviously think I need to prove something to them.  That would be the big NO.  Do yer own research; I've put mine up here, so you can start by reading that...and refuting it, something I think I can safely conclude you are not up to.  (That's the "50 YEARS NO PROOF SO DONE" approach you 'skeptics' are so fond of.)

Posted

I'll tell you what drives "science."

 

Called "FUNDING."

 

I can take any side of a scientific position, fund one, and I guarantee, the science will skew to that side.  If I turn right around and fund the opposing side, maybe with a bit MORE funding - the science will indicate the opposing position.

 

No funding, no science.  Modern science is much akin to mercenaries.  You show them the money, they'll fight for your side.

 

Another word for the same principle is prostitution.  You pay, indicate what you're looking for, and they'll play.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

I don't think most people crowing about the omnipotence of science quite understand how much like prostitution the practice of science has gotten.

 

There is no more slam-dunk obvious candidate for full-time funding - anywhere in science - than the thing we are discussing here.  (Every day you read in the news something far stupider that got full-time funding.) Everything - EVERYTHING - about 'so why don't we have proof yet?' can be answered by the simple word FUNDING. 

 

Scientists are money hoes.  Let one flush philanthropist say hey, I wanna know, and we will know bigfoot's real - except of course for the flat-earth set - within a year.

Moderator
Posted

DWA -

 

I sort of agree regarding science but as a counter point, one should ask why Adrian Erickson's money or Wally Hersom's money hasn't produce proof if private funding is the answer.

 

MIB

Posted (edited)

Well obviously funding isn't all there is to it.  If we spend the whole pot on searching for high-elevation sasquatch graves and nothing but...take NAWAC.  You fund them for a year, doing what they're doing on their self-funded vacations, and I bet by the end of that year bigfoot is the big story, proof or no.  And they'd have enough evidence to announce 'we are in this until proof.'

Edited by DWA
Posted
8 hours ago, DWA said:

I don't think most people crowing about the omnipotence of science quite understand how much like prostitution the practice of science has gotten.

 

There is no more slam-dunk obvious candidate for full-time funding - anywhere in science - than the thing we are discussing here.  (Every day you read in the news something far stupider that got full-time funding.) Everything - EVERYTHING - about 'so why don't we have proof yet?' can be answered by the simple word FUNDING. 

 

Scientists are money hoes.  Let one flush philanthropist say hey, I wanna know, and we will know bigfoot's real - except of course for the flat-earth set - within a year.

 

2 hours ago, DWA said:

Well obviously funding isn't all there is to it.  If we spend the whole pot on searching for high-elevation sasquatch graves and nothing but...take NAWAC.  You fund them for a year, doing what they're doing on their self-funded vacations, and I bet by the end of that year bigfoot is the big story, proof or no.  And they'd have enough evidence to announce 'we are in this until proof.'

 

So is funding Everything - EVERYTHING or not ?  Because 8 hours ago I thought it was EVERYTHING, but 6 hours later I find out it isn't all there is.  I'm confused.

 

 IB word salad explaining I'm not a scientist or that I have not read all the reports yet.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

Funding is the engine of discovery.

 

Discovery requires funding, skill, and persistence.

 

No funding - no go.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...