Sept 17Th Bf Reported In Va.

[Guest DWA]

Which was my point about the introduction of denialism to a thread about evidence. 

 

This is a piece of evidence.  Like all the others that run right in the mainstream of what people are reporting, this one goes firmly on the pile.  If one cannot either show that it is proof, or show that it is a false positive, there is, quite literally, nothing else to do with it but say:  yet one more piece of evidence. of the kind that come in almost daily, indicating the presence of an undocumented North American primate.

[WSA]

Al I can say is: Yet one more piece of evidence, of the kind that come in almost daily, indicating the presence of an undocumented North American primate.

 

This would be what we call in the trade "boilerplate."   So obvious so as to not to be needing to be said.  We do seem to spend a lot of time around here saying what supposedly should go without saying, don't we?

[Incorrigible1]

12, 267 actual scientists considered state of evidence and conclude "No bigfoot."

 

Two posters, one a self-appointed scientist consider state of evidence and conclude "No brainer. It's obvious bigfoot exists."

 

Incorrigible1 considers overwhelming difference and concludes "Go with actual scientists." Drops mic.

[dmaker]

Which was my point about the introduction of denialism to a thread about evidence. 

 

This is a piece of evidence.  Like all the others that run right in the mainstream of what people are reporting, this one goes firmly on the pile.  If one cannot either show that it is proof, or show that it is a false positive, there is, quite literally, nothing else to do with it but say:  yet one more piece of evidence. of the kind that come in almost daily, indicating the presence of an undocumented North American primate.

Who said anything Denialist?

[dmaker]

Which was my point about the introduction of denialism to a thread about evidence. 

 

This is a piece of evidence.  Like all the others that run right in the mainstream of what people are reporting, this one goes firmly on the pile.  If one cannot either show that it is proof, or show that it is a false positive, there is, quite literally, nothing else to do with it but say:  yet one more piece of evidence. of the kind that come in almost daily, indicating the presence of an undocumented North American primate.

Since you have failed to respond, I have to ask again: who introduced anything resembling denialism?

 

You talk often about keeping the subject on topic and avoiding arguments about existence, yet here you are preaching about denialism when no one said anything remotely denialist.

 

Try taking your own advice and getting off your soapbox for a post or two. 

 

 

I'm sorry, the answer to my question is that no one did. My intention was not to derail this thread with this post, but to hopefully demonstrate to you, DWA,  that you are more often the one that starts the derail, even with no valid seque. 

Edited September 26, 2015 by dmaker

[Faenor]

Here here WSA and DWA!  I agree no one would report these experiences to law enforcement if these events weren't actually occurring.

Here is more examples of reports to police.  Boilerplate as WSA calls It in the trade.

http://metro.co.uk/2010/10/21/helpful-ghosts-and-shrewfoot-fairies-in-paranormal-hotspots-across-the-uk-555278/

http://ufohunterorguk.com/2012/03/16/devon-and-cornwall-freedom-of-information-act-request-recent-supernatural-ufos/

According to the uk police reports there are numerous fairies and helpful spirits. Also  poor cornwall and Devon.  The police there have to deal with the lots ghosts and ufos,  one poor fellow apparently had Paul newmans ghosts bloting ink on pictures of Jesus.  

People don't make this stuff up and report it to the police. Boilerplate

[Guest DWA]

^^^^And there's a pile of saying the wrong stuff.  Learn to do science, gang, and all kinds of stuff gets easier, like life.

 

This is the coolest thing about science:  the more one avoids flights of fancy like "this SasFake is the greatest and most highly coordinated and technologically sophisticated thing our species has ever done, just that I don't recognize that because I don't know how to think about this," the more one sticks to patient technical and systematic evaluation of the evidence, leavened by broad and deep involvement with the relevant subject matter...

 

...the more fun, by leaps and bounds, it gets.

Edited September 26, 2015 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Al I can say is: Yet one more piece of evidence, of the kind that come in almost daily, indicating the presence of an undocumented North American primate.

 

This would be what we call in the trade "boilerplate."   So obvious so as to not to be needing to be said.  We do seem to spend a lot of time around here saying what supposedly should go without saying, don't we?

Should toss in:  ^^^guy's a lawyer.  So if you think you understand evidence next to him, well, yes, arrogant of you, I'd agree with that assessment.

[Faenor]

^^^^And there's a pile of saying the wrong stuff.  Learn to do science, gang, and all kinds of stuff gets easier, like life.

 

This is the coolest thing about science:  the more one avoids flights of fancy like "this SasFake is the greatest and most highly coordinated and technologically sophisticated thing our species has ever done, just that I don't recognize that because I don't know how to think about this," the more one sticks to patient technical and systematic evaluation of the evidence, leavened by broad and deep involvement with the relevant subject matter...

 

...the more fun, by leaps and bounds, it gets.

Yes i agree it's all fake unless it's about Bigfoot because... Science yea that's the ticket. We just need to convince the scientists we are doing science correctly and they are not.

[MIB]

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

Never in the entire history of this phenomenon has the scientific mainstream *ever* looked, by the standards of science.  Period.

 

Nothing sillier and more laughable is said by bigfoot skeptics than "with all the people out there combing the woods..."

 

NONE.  For all intents and purposes, and anyone understanding how to think about this - including NAWAC, the folks doing the most looking - knows this cold.

[Rockape]

12, 267 actual scientists considered state of evidence and conclude "No bigfoot."

 

Two posters, one a self-appointed scientist consider state of evidence and conclude "No brainer. It's obvious bigfoot exists."

 

Incorrigible1 considers overwhelming difference and concludes "Go with actual scientists." Drops mic.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2015 by Rockape

[dmaker]

No, not at all.   It's not that they're doing science wrong, it's that regarding bigfoot, few are doing science at all.   The evidence pile is large enough and consistent enough to warrant a more thorough and serious investigation than is being done.     There are a few scientists engaging but so far as I can tell, all are having to find funding outside their regular work channels, the institution of science is not engaging.   Given the amount of evidence apparent to me, the only explanations for that require circular reasoning: "we won't look until it is proven" and "it won't be proven until we look." 

 

MIB

Most scientists do not consider anecdotes evidence.

[Rockape]

^ I'm gonna wait for confirmation on that from DWA.

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

^ I'm gonna wait for confirmation on that from DWA.