Leaderboard

And, this is the whole problem. No matter how many times people tell you they disagree with you, you think the evidence points to an undiscovered animal so everyone else has to too. I have no issue with you thinking that. but you can't tell everyone else they have to think it and expect them not to argue with you. And don't give me the "haven't looked into it enough" thing. It doesn't warrant looking into, in my opinion, and in the opinion of 99% of scientists, because mistake and fabrication can explain all the sighting reports. I do not have to 'prove' that as I am saying it CAN be true, not it IS true.. That's why scientists who don't believe it warrants looking into don't spend as much time looking into it as those that do. Kind of self-fulfilling. if you can't see the flaws in logic in your assumptions here by now, you're never going to be able to. I do not wish to have this conversation with you again though so I shall not respond to you any more. I know what you think, and was not addressing this to you as I am really uninterested in hearing your opinions reiterated for the thousandth time.

" My annoyance tends to be with people who don't think that the evidence points that way, " This is why threads that you are in often end up with moderator statements or temporary locks. You refuse to acknowledge any opinion that differs from yours. People can examine the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. Yet you do not allow for this. In your mind there is only one conclusion. Just because you find the evidence compelling does not mean that someone else will. And your dismissal of those people as incapable of proper thought or reading comprehension because they did not arrive at your conclusion leads to a lot of angst around here imo.

"And all the reasonably intelligent people who only needed reasonable intelligence to see this coming will all go, yep, those scientists, maaaan they are smart [guffaw]..." There you go again. So anyone who does not share your opinion on the evidence is not reasonably intelligent? You just can't help yourself, can you? BTW wouldn't all the reasonably intelligent people already posses reasonable intelligence? And would, therefore, not be in further need of reasonable intelligence to see this coming?

I ignore everything from LarryP including his signature. Conspiracy theories and ESP do not intrigue me. You conveniently focus only on one aspect of the opposing thesis: hallucinations. I know why you do this, and any observant reader of these threads should also know why you do this. It allows you to portray anyone who supports that thesis as a big meanie-head who thinks all BF witnesses are a few marbles short of a full bag. You ignore the other components of the theory such as hoaxes and mistakes. We have ample evidence of both. The number of mistaken identities mounts every time we have another study that returns results of human, bear, beaver, dog, horse, etc. Each one of those was submitted as coming from a Bigfoot, but in the end did not. That seems to fit almost any definition of mistake that I can think of. And hoaxes, well we don't really need to get into those now do we? Both of those sources are numerous and substantiated.

I often discuss the evidence, but it doesn't matter in your world because I have a different opinion as to the source than you do. The fact that you do not find my comments or suggestion interesting sustenance for your brain does little to sadden me. Howzabout you substantiate just one Bigfoot sighting report? Just one. That is all it will take. I mean since you are sitting here talking about who is substantiating what now...

The lack of evidence itself is the determining factor. Even psychics get it right once in a while, but Bigfooters, they don't ever have to back up their claims. They get a free pass on every claim. There is a reason the Wood Ape project is broadcast on the Bigfoot Forums and not on a Scientific Forum. And it is not because scientists hate Bigfooters.

The photo you posted, if it is the photo I am thinking of, wasn't even open to debate, which is why the silence. it was a distant blob that could have been anything and there was no point in arguing about it because there was no way of telling. Now, I'm not saying it was or wasn't Bigfoot. I am however saying it wasn't evidence of anything, which is also fine. I am not sure why people think you claim you have better evidence you will not post. Unless you have said this in the past I think they may be confusing you with other people who have said this. it's become standard on this forum to offer a theory with no proof at all and then sit back and claim that any alternative explanations need to be 'proved' or you have to accept the first proffered explanation without dispute or doubt.

Jerry, if you don't get it, you don't get it. That doesn't bother me. The point of engaging subjective skeptics is not to convince them of anything. That's a lost cause. It is a matter of preserving the undiscouraged use of this forum by those who have an objective interest in the subject.

LCB, I'm trying to keep up with this.. First you offer the NAWAC the firearms knowledge they have been sorely missing to accomplish their goals and to crawl out of their ineptness, but then as they are no doubt rushing out to equip themselves as you have prescribed, you ask them to put the genie back in the bottle and to reconsider this course of action entirely. I hope they kept their receipts from the last couple of days. And then to top it off, you inform us that some associated with NAWAC call the "individual" a monkey for their conscious sake, rather than for the possibility that they are actually convinced that the subject is more closely related to other apes than to humans. I'm sure this is something you know to be true, otherwise it would constitute an unfounded accusation. This information is astounding. Is it possible that you are one of those meta-physical 10-dimensional forces that you have stated are manipulating us? I have also noticed recently that some forum members who are more often associated with other "pet" threads on this forum, where open-mindedness is promoted when discussing those subjects, and where it is periodically lamented how overly-aggressive challenges to the subject of those threads discourages others from offering information, have no problem coming to the NAWAC thread and basically doing the same thing here - essentially using the information presented as ammunition against those who offer it, or at the very least taking this thread off topic and into more of a morality discussion. I enjoy healthy debate and discussion, but what I just described strikes me as hypocritical. Sometimes I think that on any given day, the existence of bigfoot is more likely to be proven than the existence of an actual bigfoot community. I do thank Brian and others who have made the actual NAWAC field study discussion interesting. I had better go take cover before science commences the "lamb blasting". I don't fancy getting covered with wool and other young sheep bits.

1) I think it's safe to assume that he simply did not cut the other track way because they were not traveling together directly. 2) The big one hid and the smaller one presented itself as a target in a tree, two distinctly different responses to a threat. That could convey that the smaller one did not have the experience needed. It also convey's that the bigger one was unable to verbally or otherwise, warn the smaller one. 3) Or they had a den with summer grub rat holed away. 4) Or proof. Make no mistake if the law thinks your illegally shooting Bear? They are going to come after you. 5) I think this is the biggest lesson, the man was alone. (two is one and one is none) It's not a good situation to be in........and if there was two? What about three? Without a 360 degree situational awareness and things happening fast? This could have easily been a 411 story. One man cannot cover a 360 degree battle space, he is exposed to his flanks and direct rear. If the story is true of course, but taking it at face value? This is some of my observations.

After looking closely at this evidence/no-evidence false binary equation for a long while, my conclusion is that challenging every person who comes forward to "put-up or shut-up" only accomplishes one result. Namely, the evidence goes underground, and those who shout the loudest for proof get less and less information. It fulfills itself. As harsh as it may be for some here to consider, there is a large group (and getting larger) who have no interest in sharing their information with someone who only wishes to point out how deluded they are. Just a fact. In my line of work I've seen hundreds of cocky lawyers think the way to draw out information in a deposition is to let the witness know how disdainful you are of what they are telling you. Instead, they should be doing everything but that. Flies & honey v. flies & vinegar. You tell me what works best. So, if your interest is in drawing out more evidence, coming on strong with the ol' extraordinary evidence bromide isn't going to advance the field one little bit, or get you that. The transparent attempts to claim even neutrality on this topic fool nobody, I can assure you. Those that operate in this fashion might want to ask themselves, "What am I really trying to accomplish?" If you are more interested in appearing clever to a bunch of anonymous strangers, well, crack down on it. But, if you want to see what other evidence there might be, you might want to reconsider your approach.