Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 AB, I got no problem there, Im pretty confident I couldn't do it either if presented the oppurtunity, but at least you know now that's all I want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Cervelo, did you really resort to a skeptic's favorite fallback, the "you have no body" argument when you couldn't sell your original point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 cervelo, i see your point buddy, i really do. this field has more than its share of BS,loonies, attention seeking folks, dudes looking to make a $ off the gullible etc if it hadnt been for a few interesting incidents over the years i wouldve blown this BF stuff off years ago & never looked back........... except for some of the witnesses. yeah, eye witness can be unreliable but,there are still sober minded folks out there with nothing to gain & a reputation to lose that still come forward. ( & i know a few that havent come forward and wont tell publicly) sifting through reports shows accounts given by some folks, law enforcement,military , trained observers yadda yadda...etc,yeah, the same old arguements, i know. but the ones that still keep me interested are the unknown , everyday country people with no BF agenda. folks that live in rural areas , not your weekend warrior hobbyists ,but the people where the land is as much a part of life as breathing. theyve grown up hunting ,fishing,farming etc. woods wise & know what a bear looks like,what the woods sound & smell like & how things usually are. id wager theyre less likely to mis-ID something they experience that isnt "normal", just imo. no, theyre not infallible , but i figure the odds of every single one of them being wrong are at least a little slimmer than usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I agree completely I'm not saying Bigfoot couldn't exsit or all reports are mistaken, hoaxes, ect nor have I ever, just most..... The very reports you describe experienced outdoorsman, farmers, ect the people that know what their looking at and what it's not intrigue me as well, it's a really cool myth thst I wish was true! But what I've seen so far keeps biggie in that realm for now but who knows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 So, only most of the reports are mistaken or hoaxes. That still leaves a lot of valid reports.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Cervelo, did you really resort to a skeptic's favorite fallback, the "you have no body" argument when you couldn't sell your original point? Absolutely!!!! And I ain't the one doing the selling So, only most of the reports are mistaken or hoaxes. That still leaves a lot of valid reports.... Valid as in what is validated???? That some people saw something in the woods they couldn't explain... Look fellas I'm not hear to convince you of anything believe what you want. I'm going to make my point as I see it right or wrong. Feel free to meet me in the tar pit Edited April 21, 2012 by Cervelo Rule 1A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Oh, there is someone trying to sell the idea we don't need a bigfoot body for science to prove it's real? Or even if Forest Rangers say they have seen one or believe in it that proves they are real too? I think I missed it all. Edited April 21, 2012 by BFSleuth Rule 1A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Gentlemen, let's keep this thread going without closing it. I'll be editing the last few posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 21, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 21, 2012 That some people saw something in the woods they couldn't explain... Uh, what if it wasn't in the woods, and there was no need for explanation, on account of it being too obvious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Sal, Maybe you missed it in my previous post (well part of got deleted so who knows) My position is the up close clearly obvious what's it is or is not are very intriguing, and shall we say limits the possibilities to a few choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Sal, My position is the up close clearly obvious what's it is or is not are very intriguing, and shall we say limits the possibilities to a few choices. Sorry- I can't make out what you are trying to say. Is this accurate: "My position is the up close is clearly obvious; what it is or is not is very intriguing. And shall we say limits the possibilities to a few choices." -Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 We agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2012 OK then- that is exactly the kind of experience I had. No ambiguity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Guys obviously there are all kinds of reports that we can come up with to address my concerns, and I hate to be so blunt, but great so show me the body already, that's really the bottom line prove it, after all this time sooner or later one would think by now...... As far as eyewitness reports I think it's pretty well established they can be highly unreliable, a little goggling should clear that up for you or because I say so if that helps LOL In other words (as I said elsewhere): "Don't bother to show me evidence because my mind's made up and I'm always 100% right!" Cervelo, did you really resort to a skeptic's favorite fallback, the "you have no body" argument when you couldn't sell your original point? Yep. I'm not saying Bigfoot couldn't exsit or all reports are mistaken, hoaxes, ect nor have I ever, just most..... The very reports you describe experienced outdoorsman, farmers, ect the people that know what their looking at and what it's not intrigue me as well, it's a really cool myth thst I wish was true! But what I've seen so far keeps biggie in that realm for now but who knows.... See above. No matter how much evidence is presented, you "double down" on your Skepticism. Skeptics accuse proponents of being "believers", that is "accepting a position despite lack of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence". How is your position any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I guessed you missed the show me the body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts