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

[Guest Divergent1]

My only criticism for that is that you shouldn't ignore other plausible explanations while looking at the evidence. I don't know how much of what we see in public that you would have left after that.....

Edited May 27, 2015 by Divergent1

[Guest FootDude]

Because it's 2015 and people waste lots of time on the internet doing lots of dumb things.

If there is one thing we know, it's that people don't need an excuse for 'stupid'.

[Guest DWA]

My only criticism for that is that you shouldn't ignore other plausible explanations while looking at the evidence. I don't know how much of what we see in public that you would have left after that.....

Define "what we see in public," almost all of which is bull fertilizer, with three notable exceptions, all public info that the public is largely unaware of:

 

1) The encounter literature, which must be read in detail and thought about, at length, to understand what is going on here.  Sorry, no shortcuts in science;

2) The opinions of directly qualified scientists, which are never addressed by the skeptic camp, which prefers to talk at us, and not listen to what we say back; and

3) The footprints, for which saying that a significant fragment, let alone all of them, are fake or mistaken identity stretches the credulity of anyone paying attention way beyond the breaking point.

[ExTrumpet]

Some people watch movies knowing that the content is made up and pure fantasy.  And, I think some are here for the exact same reason!

[Guest DWA]

Yeah...but...3,000 times...???

[Guest Divergent1]

Define "what we see in public," almost all of which is bull fertilizer, with three notable exceptions, all public info that the public is largely unaware of:

 

1) The encounter literature, which must be read in detail and thought about, at length, to understand what is going on here.  Sorry, no shortcuts in science;

2) The opinions of directly qualified scientists, which are never addressed by the skeptic camp, which prefers to talk at us, and not listen to what we say back; and

3) The footprints, for which saying that a significant fragment, let alone all of them, are fake or mistaken identity stretches the credulity of anyone paying attention way beyond the breaking point.

"What we see in public" amounts to those sightings that are reported, soft evidence like prints, etc that are presented for public review.....we probably never hear about or see the best stuff.

 

1.) Hear say

2.) What qualifications do you need to study bigfoot?

3.) Some prints are more convincing than others because of where they are found. The circumstances vary, if they are in a place frequented by humans on a regular basis it allows for other more plausible explanations.

[Oonjerah]

Divergent1: "3.) Some prints are more convincing than others because of where they are found.

The circumstances vary, if they are in a place frequented by humans on a regular basis it allows

for other more plausible explanations."

 

 

I find the more plausible explanation is: Some of the footprints are real,

because some of the trackways were unHoaxable. 

 

(edited by Oonjerah)

Edited May 27, 2015 by Oonjerah

[Guest Divergent1]

And the reason I said , " Some prints are more convincing than others because of where they are found."

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I stay abreast of the topic because, honestly and truly, I want to see how deep down the rabbithole some of you folk will go without a shread of reliable evidence.

 

This is where ignoreboy will scream about the difference between proof and evidence, but I'm not asking for proof. Just evidence.

 

Like it or not, Tontar's head fits into a mask and Patty's profile.

 

This isn't proof, but it's evidence that Bill's claim is suspect and incorrect.

 

Or we could all agree and high five and no discussion would ever occur.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Squatchy McSquatch

[roguefooter]

^If that's the mask that Kitakaze posted then it's a flawed mask. That mask was created from the outline of Patty's hair.

 

A reproduction with no hair should not be the same size as the original with hair. Once you put proper hair on it then the shape and size increases.

Edited May 28, 2015 by roguefooter

[Guest Crowlogic]

I stay abreast of the topic because, honestly and truly, I want to see how deep down the rabbithole some of you folk will go without a shread of reliable evidence.

 

This is where ignoreboy will scream about the difference between proof and evidence, but I'm not asking for proof. Just evidence.

 

Like it or not, Tontar's head fits into a mask and Patty's profile.

 

This isn't proof, but it's evidence that Bill's claim is suspect and incorrect.

 

Or we could all agree and high five and no discussion would ever occur.

The bigfoot rabbit hole is pretty deep so the beat goes on.  

 

Lets for a moment consider the trackway issue.  Trackways are sometimes said to be found in out of the way places and claimed reliable evidence.  Perhaps some qualify well enough to seem real. But the question begs the answer why doesn't anyone ever find the trackway maker?  Why do they not find where the walker had lunch or took a dump?  Are all good trackways un followable?  Why do they never show any other evidence of the thing that made them?  Each and every person that's ever found a trackway has arrived too late or couldn't rough it out and truly wring every ounce of data from the find?  It's just another oddity that won't add up.  Also U see some research groups come upon claimed bedding areas and they film it and show it but never do they attempt to get hair samples.  In my estimation a bedding or den structure is a holy grail for hard evidence and they mosey off with some videos and call it good.  Could it be that they know before hand there's no bigfoot connection after all?

[MagniAesir]

Nah, the 'skeptics' in this field add nothing and derail the discussion rather than enhancing it.  They aren't needed to keep anyone honest; their basic premise is dishonesty embodied.

as a skeptic I disagree with this very unscientific viewpoint especially from someone who claims to hold to the scientific principle

[Guest]

^^ He meant "skeptics", not actual skeptics.  Skepticism is good.  Having an unreasonably closed mind is bad and unscientific.  We can debate about what "reasonably open" is, but the premise is sound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stay abreast of the topic because, honestly and truly, I want to see how deep down the rabbithole some of you folk will go without a shread of reliable evidence.

 

This is where ignoreboy will scream about the difference between proof and evidence, but I'm not asking for proof. Just evidence.

 

Like it or not, Tontar's head fits into a mask and Patty's profile.

 

This isn't proof, but it's evidence that Bill's claim is suspect and incorrect.

 

Or we could all agree and high five and no discussion would ever occur.

 

How do you explain this?

Edited May 28, 2015 by lastlaugh

[Guest]

^If that's the mask that Kitakaze posted then it's a flawed mask. That mask was created from the outline of Patty's hair.

 

A reproduction with no hair should not be the same size as the original with hair. Once you put proper hair on it then the shape and size increases.

 

There is also no scale against the full body either. It's an epic fail.

[MIB]

I stay abreast of the topic because, honestly and truly, I want to see how deep down the rabbithole some of you folk will go without a shread of reliable evidence.

 

I think that's disingenuous.  You should have said "without a shred of evidence Squatchy will accept."   Reliability of evidence is personal and subjective.  I rely on my own experiences, you scoff at them and insult me by doing so.   We're not going to agree on what is reliable unless you change your mind.   (I'm not holding my breath.)

 

MIB

Edited May 28, 2015 by MIB