Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

I think the points really simple whitey showed up and found all the large critters except one that persist today for most people as a myth.

This.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[norseman]

I started replying to this as I wanted to mention that Leif Erikson left no writings that this could be attributed too, further the year of the purported writing is not possible as Erik the Red (Leif's father) had not yet made it to Greenland at the time. Looking around for the source of that quote I then found there is a much better researched reply to the Skraeling is bigfoot idea here: http://skepticalhuma...leif-eiriksson/. A small snippet is below (you should read the whole thing it shows the length facts are twisted and things outright made up in footery "literature", then repeated as truth)

Skraeling is indeed a Norse derogatory term for the Inuit. Surprisingly enough the Norse were on Greenland before the Inuit were, and unfortunately there was bad blood between them from the start.

[Guest DWA]

Ever consider that the "something" just isn't strong enough to look into?

Nope, because, having looked into it, I know it is strong enough, and some of the best-qualified scientists in a position to judge agree with me.

No scientist who disagrees has shown me a knowledge of the topic that remotely challenges mine, let alone Meldrum's and Bindernagel's.

[Guest RayG]

Fascinating.

What's your scientific specialty DWA? I mean in which area did you earn your PhD?

Where may we peruse some of this knowledge that you profess to be in possession of?

I'm keen to learn, fill my head with wonder and enlightenment.

RayG

[Guest DWA]

Fascinating.

What's your scientific specialty DWA? I mean in which area did you earn your PhD?

Where may we peruse some of this knowledge that you profess to be in possession of?

I'm keen to learn, fill my head with wonder and enlightenment.

RayG

Simpler than that.

Bring any quote you want on here, from any scientist who thinks this is a bunch of hooey. Go ahead.

You could have an eighth-grade education and know more about it than some of them, and all you need is what they say.

Edited December 17, 2012 by DWA

[Doc Holliday]

So why is it that bigfoot is so believable for some people?

probably cause "some people" keep seeing them.

not talking about the loonies or attention seekers either.

regular folks with nothing to gain & a rep to lose still come forward with some regularity giving at least a similar generic description matching supposed BF attributes....yeah eyewitnesses can fail, people lie etc, so while it isn't proof, theres enough history there to make it worth a look ( & inspire years worth of circular debate )

[Guest RayG]

So you're really just a 'self-professed expert' and not a real expert.

RayG

[Guest DWA]

So why is it that bigfoot is so believable for some people?

For thousands of people: they've seen one.

Scientists eminently qualified to judge the evidence have said it points to the reality of the animal.

And when one has thought about it some, one realizes there isn't a single thing about it that defies explanation.

[ohiobill]

Why do you edit such a preponderance of your posts? Certainly someone as knowledgable as yourself doesn't make mistakes in what you are trying to convey? Is that a trick you learned from your lawyer friend? Hindsight being 20/20 doesn't appear to be improving your critical thinking so I'm curious?

[Guest DWA]

Why do you edit such a preponderance of your posts? Certainly someone as knowledgable as yourself doesn't make mistakes in what you are trying to convey? Is that a trick you learned from your lawyer friend? Hindsight being 20/20 doesn't appear to be improving your critical thinking so I'm curious?

Dude, go debate with Meldrum. And try something new when you do.

(Edited to add:) Some people write dumb stuff and stand pat. Howzat workin' for ya?

So you're really just a 'self-professed expert' and not a real expert.

RayG

Nope, just somebody who thinks more about what he reads than a lot of people. And who reads much more, before he pronounces on something, than one heck of a lot of scientists.

Edited December 17, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

^Just because you said so doesn't make that a valid argument.

[Guest DWA]

^Just because you said so doesn't make that a valid argument.

What? I'm making up Jeff Meldrum now?

[Doc Holliday]

So you're really just a 'self-professed expert' and not a real expert.

RayG

i suspect most of the experts are self professed, what with all the different arguments/theories presented.

IOW,somebody has to be wrong, but none of 'em are gonna admit it.

[ohiobill]

(Edited to add:) Some people write dumb stuff and stand pat.

i've noticed the times you have but more so on your edited posts. Possibly because you edit so much? Many times when someone has a weak argument they go for stridency but an argument is decided on it's merits. I appreciate your passion but perhaps if you focused more on quality rather than quantity? Ask your lawyer friend for an example of a well written brief if you have some free time to spend on the subject.

[Guest DWA]

Hmmmm. I compare our posts and....think I'll just keep doin' what I'm doin' thanks.