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

[Guest DWA]

@WSA, By all means, I really wish Footers would pursue evidence until proof. They just haven't done that yet.

@Norse, your "real" tracks haven't lead to a squatch yet, have they? When they do, let's talk.

We'll talk.

You'll be speechless.

LOL, this was funny. Yep, sitting in my van with cup of coffee in hand and my binoculars strained to see into the dark forest, with my heart going a thousand miles a minute... and I fell asleep in fear??? Sorry, that's the most unlikely explanation for the incident that I've ever heard. And it's never happened to me anywhere else or any time else. Nope, doesn't pass the sniff test for my experience.

Actually, from my read, and you know I actually have read 'em, it doesn't close to pass the sniff test for any of them.

[Djj]

No, I'm not. But I can point you in the right direction. There is a BFRO report of a US Army SF team in Alaska. And there is also one that was in a documentary of Marines encountering two I think during war games in the Sierras. That's two accounts that snap right to mind.......there are others.

I encourage you to go dig around and look for yourself.

. I saw the SF team BFRO report. Interesting read.... One of those what ifs if they were armed....

[Drew]

LOL, this was funny. Yep, sitting in my van with cup of coffee in hand and my binoculars strained to see into the dark forest, with my heart going a thousand miles a minute... and I fell asleep in fear??? Sorry, that's the most unlikely explanation for the incident that I've ever heard. And it's never happened to me anywhere else or any time else. Nope, doesn't pass the sniff test for my experience.

Describe what happened please. It sounds like classic cataplexy.

[Guest DWA]

Describe what you walked on, Mr. Armstrong. I'm telling you, it sounds like green cheese.

These toss-off "answers" without availing oneself of information are - well, would you trust a scientist who told you he'd done that?

You know, sir, this could be a tumor. It looks like one. But it sounds more like whining to me. Go home and stop whining.

Edited March 15, 2013 by DWA

[Drew]

These toss-off "answers" without availing oneself of information are - well, would you trust a scientist who told you he'd done that?

If I went to a doctor, and told him "I was looking at a Bigfoot, and then I collapsed and lost all muscle tone, but was still conscious." and he said, 'Hmm maybe you saw a Bigfoot and he zapped you with infrasound.', I would report him to the medical board.

[Guest DWA]

To each his own.

If I were the doctor now, I'd tell the med board what you told me. What, I'm not supposed to listen to my patients now?

BTW, I don't think I have ever - that would be ever - read a report from a person zapped with infrasound by a bigfoot. Oh, wait. I remember one.

One.

This is the reed on which you are dismissing all of them? Interesting technique.

I don't care where you got the dust, Mr. Armstrong. IT'S GREEN CHEESE.

[Guest LarryP]

@WSA, By all means, I really wish Footers would pursue evidence until proof. They just haven't done that yet.

@Norse, your "real" tracks haven't lead to a squatch yet, have they? When they do, let's talk.

So, if Norseman told you that he had followed tracks that successfully led him to a Sasquatch, what would you want to "talk" to him about?

[norseman]

. I saw the SF team BFRO report. Interesting read.... One of those what ifs if they were armed....

They were...........with blanks.........

[Djj]

Touché! I think they would have been more comfortable with live ammo... Even if just for defensive purposes.

[dmaker]

So, if Norseman told you that he had followed tracks that successfully led him to a Sasquatch, what would you want to "talk" to him about?

It was meant more in the sense of, then we'll have something to talk about. It's an idiom. Not to be taken completely literally.

[Guest LarryP]

It was meant more in the sense of, then we'll have something to talk about. It's an idiom. Not to be taken completely literally.

I realized what you meant. But based on your consistent stance on this subject, it is obvious that Norse would have to produce a dead BF that you would need to see and examine in person before you would be convinced that they actually exist.

But then again, even that might not be enough to convince you.

[dmaker]

I would accept video evidence ( provided it was clear and unmistakeable), same goes for photographic. Especially if it came from a source like Norseman who seems pretty earnest and honest. And of course if a body was examined by someone with scientific credentials and confirmed, then I would accept that as well. In fact there are quite a few scenarios that would move me from my current stance to believer. It's just that none of them have come even close to happening yet. All that happens are blobsquatches and ridiculous hoaxes. One after another after another after another.

@Norse,

"But you understand that you have just put your self into a self perpetuating gerbil cage with no way out?"

How so? My cage has an easy way out. Someone needs to show the world the monkey. That's all. How is that a cage with no way out? The only self perpetuating gerbil cage I see here is DWA/WSA and their we haven't found BF yet because no one is looking properly. That's a handy little ship that can't be sunk right there. It could sail on for years and years. All they have to keep saying ( and I'm sure they/he will since they/he are showing no signs of slowing down yet) is the same thing over and over again. Which basically boils down to "Science is lazy and mean to Footers. Until Science decides to take this task out of the hands of incompetent amateurs, BF will never be proven to the world."

That's the only gerbil cage I see in this thread.

[Guest DWA]

If it's "a handy little ship" you can't sink, it hasn't occurred to you that you can't think of a way to do it? Because, well, you don't think enough? Don't feel insulted or nothin'. What WSA and I have been saying for, what 180 pages now, is that "bigfoot skeptics" aren't skeptical; don't think about this enough; and have almost no understanding of how science is supposed to work. And the evidence keeps pouring in that we are right, and I just responded to the latest piece of it.

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

Noproofnoproofnoproofnoproofnoproof

...speaking of saying the same thing over and over and over. At least we're having fun. (No. You are NOT.)

Oh. Bill Munns - the only person, maybe, in the world other than Patterson and Gimlin and Meldrum and maybe a few others who would be able to make an educated approach to this - says Patty is real. If you doubt him, you not only are having no fun but may never have any.

Edited March 16, 2013 by DWA

[Guest LarryP]

Oh. Bill Munns - the only person, maybe, in the world other than Patterson and Gimlin and Meldrum and maybe a few others who would be able to make an educated approach to this - says Patty is real. If you doubt him, you not only are having no fun but may never have any.

Not to mention, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev..

[Guest]

Oh. Bill Munns - the only person, maybe, in the world other than Patterson and Gimlin and Meldrum and maybe a few others who would be able to make an educated approach to this - says Patty is real.

Meanwhile, John Napier, former director of the Smithsonian's primate center, says it's a hoax. Why is he unable to make an educated approach? CSICop has done a pretty good job of arguing why the tracks associated with Patty are fake. Why should we discount their opinion?