Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

[roguefooter]

I have been told by people who work in museums that there are BF bones in storage, but they will never be displayed because people don't believe, and showing the bones would cause a lot of controversy.. 

 

Why would "belief" dissuade anyone who claims to have hard proof? You don't see that this makes no sense at all?

 

These people were yanking your chain.

[Guest DWA]

As I see it, a major reason for the unhealthy divide between proponents/"believers" and skeptics/"deniers" are the "knowers" on both sides - ones that are so sure of the correctness of their position and their innate infallibility that they only look for what they want to see and then cannot conceive of any other reasonable alternative...

I can go with this.  Too many "knower" proponents push their theories with dismissive nastiness toward other proponents whose theories have a lot more backing them up.  Those people have the precise same impact on the field as bigfoot skeptics.  If you know you provide me proof, and that is all.  Otherwise, you are at best giving me your subjective opinion, which ain't taxonomy.

 

Why would "belief" dissuade anyone who claims to have hard proof? You don't see that this makes no sense at all?

We now know Patterson had hard proof.  We should have known that 47 years ago.  Which means, yes, it makes complete sense.  Why provide something to people who either will dismiss it without review or don't have the slightest amount of competence to review it?  (Hint:  your response will be my confirmation.)

Edited June 22, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

Here is a negative bigfoot comment that can be backed up and tested.  There is not a single museum, zoo or animal park in this country that has a biological bigfoot on display alive or dead.  Go ahead check it out.   The reason is bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

^^^

That is a correct statement as far as I would guess Crow, but here is a negative bigfoot skeptic comment can be backed up and tested too: 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  Just saying.  

[Guest DWA]

...and of coure, Crow, that's not the reason.  (Hint:  no blue whales in any of those neither, and yes this is an utterly cogent Logic 101 slam-dunk refutation...which people having temporarily shelved their rational approach will not, of course, get.)

Edited June 22, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^

That is a correct statement as far as I would guess Crow, but here is a negative bigfoot skeptic comment can be backed up and tested too: 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  Just saying.  

If absence of evidence is not evidence of absence then exactly what is it?  

Tell me, show me - Why? You wouldn't believe it anyway. I am done responding to folks who have nothing better to do with their time then to waste ours.

Understand that my criteria for finding bigfoot is actually finding bigfoot and bringing it to the world.  Not more stick structures and stone stacks.  So that said I ask.  Did you find bigfoot today?  Did anybody find bigfoot today?  So far every nano second spent in the search has been a waste of time.

[WSA]

Yeah...looks like I've reached that "ignore" threshold.  I take longer than most, but I will get there eventually. Toodles.  

[Guest DWA]

There is a point at which one isn't responding to them any more, just using them to point out to people how scientific inquiry is not done.

[roguefooter]

 

 

We now know Patterson had hard proof.  We should have known that 47 years ago.  Which means, yes, it makes complete sense.  Why provide something to people who either will dismiss it without review or don't have the slightest amount of competence to review it?  (Hint:  your response will be my confirmation.)

 

Film is not hard proof of existence- bones are.

 

Learn the difference.

 

There is a point at which one isn't responding to them any more, just using them to point out to people how scientific inquiry is not done.

 

 

Do you consider all the current researchers as doing things scientifically?  Are they doing things the correct way?

Edited June 22, 2015 by roguefooter

[Squatchy McSquatch]

^^^

That is a correct statement as far as I would guess Crow, but here is a negative bigfoot skeptic comment can be backed up and tested too: 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.  Just saying.  

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of bigfoot either.

 

One doesn't have to maintain a belief in order to have an interest.

[Guest DWA]

Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

OP.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

OP.

 

Because there are guys running around contemplating the communication bigfoot is using with blue bags.  

[Guest]

^

So what? Why should you even care?

[Guest DWA]

He shouldn't....and it is a major Conundrum of Psychology why he and the other deniers do care so very very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very veryvery very very

 

much.

 

(And deny what could not, to a psychologist, be more plain.)

[Guest Crowlogic]

^

So what? Why should you even care?

What  makes you think I care?  There is a huge difference between observation and caring.  I sometimes watch the Superbowl but I don't care who wins.  I'll watch a NASCAR race but I don't care who wins.  

[roguefooter]

Why Would Denialist Waste Their Time On This Or Any Other Bf Website?

OP.

 

 

Does your font grow bigger and change colors when you get angry DWA? Are you like the Font Hulk?