Guest DWA Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 It does amuse me, the people who insist there is a suit that there never was...and get on people who are unearthing evidence - and proof - on an almost daily basis for ...um, not having anything? What, is that suit running away from you? OH. How many people have seen the suit? I think we have one...who tells a different story every time. Sounds like some folks need a "Proof Works in Mysterious Ways" T-shirt, just to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 ^What proof of this Yeti touring through their camp did they offer? Tracks corresponding to no known animal, that no known animal could have made? You're kidding right? Oh, you meant proof acceptable to *you.* You know I am not worried about that, right. What proof have those scientists you put all your faith in put forward that they are right? "You can't prove a negative" is not the answer and shows an inability to engage the topic. I love hints. What were you doing here again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) ^So the scientists found tracks they couldn't identify, then what did they do? Edited June 17, 2015 by Nakani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 ^So the scientists found tracks they couldn't identify, then what did they do? Come on its in a book written by scientists. What are you better,smarter, more scientific than them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 ^So the scientists found tracks they couldn't identify, then what did they do? Well, you could read the book. They made casts; George Schaller, who is one of the leading lights of modern zoology, inspected the casts and pronounced a distinct resemblance to those of the mountain gorilla. Gee. Another Old World pongid in similar habitat. Shocking. Schaller was smart enough not to think so. Reading the chapter: oh, they didn't get hoaxed. Didn't happen. I will decline to recount the entire chapter here, the book being available both on Amazon, cheap, and (as one BFFer found out) via library loan. (Oh. Schaller made an intensive field study of the mountain gorilla. Just tossing that in.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 I remember Henry Franzoni saying that a couple decades ago and I thought he was onto something. Then again Patterson and Gimlin found Patty. So no suit yet? Expecting to find a suit from PGF is downright silly. It's way too long ago and way to incriminating to leave around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Come on its in a book written by scientists. What are you better,smarter, more scientific than them? As I mentioned before, any fool can say "I'm a scientist" to try and bolster their credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) And anyone can lean on any fool saying that to back up their point of view, even to the point of having no idea under heaven why the people one is trusting implicitly even say it. This is the big difference between proponents and skeptics: the scientists we back are the ones whose work we've read. Skeptics hear "scientist'...and stop reading. 1. Their scientists have nothing to read except pronouncements the garbageman could make. 2. Our scientists...they cannot answer. Edited June 17, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well, you could read the book. They made casts; George Schaller, who is one of the leading lights of modern zoology, inspected the casts and pronounced a distinct resemblance to those of the mountain gorilla. Gee. Another Old World pongid in similar habitat. Shocking. Schaller was smart enough not to think so. Reading the chapter: oh, they didn't get hoaxed. Didn't happen. I will decline to recount the entire chapter here, the book being available both on Amazon, cheap, and (as one BFFer found out) via library loan.(Oh. Schaller made an intensive field study of the mountain gorilla. Just tossing that in.) They made casts...oooh how sciencey, that's not it is it? The ol' make casts and show them to a zoologist thing is pretty lame. Did they follow the tracks? Did they collect DNA from the tracks, search for hair? Did they at least take pictures of the tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Wow. Just wow. Are you gonna insist on this? DID THEY TAKE PHOTOS OF THE TRACKS!?!?!?!!? Do I have to read it to you aloud? An inventive way to deny stuff, I must say: don't expose oneself to it. Oh. OK. And as always when their credentials, and most importantly their execution, are sublimely scientific, I just leave the hoi polloi with this: Them over you. Every time. "But I didn't read it; so it didn't happen." Oh. OK. Edited June 17, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 ^DWA, So that means no on all counts? All I want is for you to look at evidence more critically. For example, the zoologist didn't say anything to indicate they were the track casts of a Yeti. He said they looked like mountain gorilla tracks. The author implied the zoologist, confirmed they are yeti who's feet resemble those of mountain gorillas.(reread it and think about it) I was wondering if there were pictures of the track way merely to confirm that they did camp out high in the mountains. Judging by the cliche evidence they collected and unbelievable failure to utilize this once in a lifetime opportunity, I doubt there even was a camping expedition. This seems like someone just writing a book to cash in on the footer community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 18, 2015 Author Share Posted June 18, 2015 DWA. Your posts are a thin blue Yet your eyes are brown. Are your teeth floating? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 ^So the scientists found tracks they couldn't identify, then what did they do? They said to themselves "We'd better not say yes or no on this else DWA will cancel our scientist credentials". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) ^DWA, So that means no on all counts? All I want is for you to look at evidence more critically. ALL I WANT IS FOR YOU TO LOOK AT IT. That way, I'll have an understanding what you mean by "critically," which at the moment I'd give a titanic NO. Not even reading it and you're debunking it! That is a case study in non-critcal non-thinking. All I want is for you to look at evidence. I'll settle for the critical to come in its own time. I was shocked to find the yeti chapter in the book! It was buried; I didn't get the book for that reason even! Talk about one of the worst examples of non-critical non-thinking I have ever seen on this board and boy IS THAT GOING SOME. What you skeptics (really among the most credulous people I have encountered, but hey) don't seem to understand is the reason we scientific proponents are on board with this animal, which (other than encountering evidence ourselves) is the application of our life experience to serious in-depth thought about the evidence, which is the essence of the true scientific approach. I knew that Cronin's expedition had turned up yeti evidence, but I was almost certain he would not put it in any book of mainstream science, because (and this is the silliest thing about you guys, that you don't clearly and obviously understand this) it won't boost sales but eliminate them! NO ONE IS MAKING MONEY OFF THIS, not that they couldn't make begging or washing windshields on the street, which are both easier. Fortunately, as the book makes plain, Cronin has the innate sense of wonder and the lyrical way of looking at the world that always drives the best science. What brought me to the book was curiosity about what else the expedition found...and there's that whole "interests outside of bigfoot" thing again, something you skeptics will never ever understand. The reason I am light-years ahead of you on this: ANIMALS HAVE ALWAYS INTERESTED ME AND THIS IS AN ANIMAL, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SAYS IT IS. Edited June 18, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSkwatch Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 ALL I WANT IS FOR YOU TO LOOK AT IT. That way, I'll have an understanding what you mean by "critically," which at the moment I'd give a titanic NO. Not even reading it and you're debunking it! That is a case study in non-critcal non-thinking. All I want is for you to look at evidence. I'll settle for the critical to come in its own time. I was shocked to find the yeti chapter in the book! It was buried; I didn't get the book for that reason even! Talk about one of the worst examples of non-critical non-thinking I have ever seen on this board and boy IS THAT GOING SOME. What you skeptics (really among the most credulous people I have encountered, but hey) don't seem to understand is the reason we scientific proponents are on board with this animal, which (other than encountering evidence ourselves) is the application of our life experience to serious in-depth thought about the evidence, which is the essence of the true scientific approach. I knew that Cronin's expedition had turned up yeti evidence, but I was almost certain he would not put it in any book of mainstream science, because (and this is the silliest thing about you guys, that you don't clearly and obviously understand this) it won't boost sales but eliminate them! NO ONE IS MAKING MONEY OFF THIS, not that they couldn't make begging or washing windshields on the street, which are both easier. Fortunately, as the book makes plain, Cronin has the innate sense of wonder and the lyrical way of looking at the world that always drives the best science. What brought me to the book was curiosity about what else the expedition found...and there's that whole "interests outside of bigfoot" thing again, something you skeptics will never ever understand. The reason I am light-years ahead of you on this: ANIMALS HAVE ALWAYS INTERESTED ME AND THIS IS AN ANIMAL, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE SAYS IT IS. Are you saying that if I looked upon the world in a more whymsical "what if" way, such as what if unicorns pooped rainbows and gold nuggets, I would become a better scientist? I would think verifiable evidence and the quest for it would work much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts