Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 game, set, match...bipto. To paraphrase your question: Which of these sasquatch footprints are real, Drew? Oh, more than you can count.
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 No, because apparently the elephants aren't smart enough to stay in the jungle, so therefore, wood apes can't exist. According to our learned friend.
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Well, ain't it so. When one species doesn't fit, use another. When there's no more hope, argue fossils. Or something. Logical approach, if you never want to change your mind and a lot of people who aren't paying attention agree with you.
Drew Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 No, because apparently the elephants aren't smart enough to stay in the jungle, so therefore, wood apes can't exist. According to our learned friend. It doesn't have anything to do with how smart they are. They are hungry, they go to the most available food supply, and get killed. Just like every other large animal in the world. Leopards, considered the smartest of the African game animals, are taken over bait as a strategy. Elephants are killed to protect fields in every country they exist in. Mountain Gorillas and chimpanzees are killed for bush meat in Africa because the hunters know where to find them. Lions were killed over dead animals. Deer and Bear are killed over bait. Bigfoot eats Zagnuts and no one can get a bead on it.
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Well how many people are putting Zagnuts out for bait? Ever think of that, huh? How many people have had a bigfoot show up over their bear bait; sworn off hunting; claimed it was lumbago; and made damsure no one ever found out the real reason? Huh? Ever think of that huh huh? And "Operation Persistent and Enduring Denial" continues...do let us know how it comes out.
Drew Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 And "Operation Persistent and Enduring Denial" continues...do let us know how it comes out. Operation Persistent and Enduring Waiting for Verifiable Evidence continues. I would totally bet how it comes out.
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Um, there is plenty of verifiable evidence. Then there are these things we call 'scientists,' charged by the society with verifying. They might want to get on that. Because the TBRC looks like it's gonna beat 'em to it. Oh wait. There's a scientist or two or three on the TBRC. Not exactly a coincidence, that. Some scientists actually understand their job.
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Operation Persistent and Enduring Waiting for Verifiable Evidence continues. I would totally bet how it comes out. Very scientific attitude.
Drew Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) ^^^^ As is: Changing the name of your group to WOOD APE research based on no DNA or specimen evidence. Edited March 18, 2013 by BigGinger To removed quoted post directly above
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Observation and common sense. Figure it's better than some word a newspaper gave us in the Fifties. Or, for that matter, prejudging the work of others. Edited March 18, 2013 by bipto
Drew Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I just don't understand how scientists can come on a Bigfoot site, and claim they are 100%sure that it is a Wood Ape, and not have to back it up with any evidence. It would be like going on a Gold Mining Website and claiming you have the largest gold deposit in the world, but you can't provide any proof that you have any gold.
Ike Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I just don't understand how scientists can come on a Bigfoot site, and claim they are 100%sure that it is a Wood Ape, and not have to back it up with any evidence. It would be like going on a Gold Mining Website and claiming you have the largest gold deposit in the world, but you can't provide any proof that you have any gold. Probably the same way a scofftic who is an adamant disbeliever in the fanciful, mythical, fairy tales of a 8' bipedal creature covered with hair roaming the woods would bother to not only come onto a forum dedicated to the study of such creatures, but spend endless days, weeks, and months wasting their time (and 1,575 posts) indulging in discussion of such. 3
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 Probably the same way a scofftic who is an adamant disbeliever in the fanciful, mythical, fairy tales of a 8' bipedal creature covered with hair roaming the woods would bother to not only come onto a forum dedicated to the study of such creatures, but spend endless days, weeks, and months wasting their time (and 1,575 posts) indulging in discussion of such. One of the biggest plusses I ever gave a post. Mysteries remain in the natural world, for sure.
Guest Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 I just don't understand how scientists can come on a Bigfoot site, and claim they are 100%sure that it is a Wood Ape, and not have to back it up with any evidence. You're confused again. You seem to think that if a naturalist or biologist experiences a new species they cannot claim to have done so until they produce the corpse. Having proof from an empirical standpoint is not the same as having enough personal experience to be able to say with some certainty that a thing is true unless the person saying it is suggesting that their experiences are all the proof that's needed. We are not saying that nor have we ever. Even if we produce an image, it is not enough. Footprint casts are not enough. One measly hair is likely not enough. Therefore, we strive to produce the necessary empirical data. The bar is set higher than we have previously been able to jump, but we continue to jump because some day we expect to clear it. You appear to me to be not much more than the person sitting in the stands munching on cotton candy and popcorn laughing at our effort and making suggestions about form and technique for a move you've never tried or could even hope to accomplish. That's your prerogative, of course.
Guest DWA Posted March 18, 2013 Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) Right. And bipto has said this how many times now? I love how bigfoot skeptics say that the confirmation of sasquatch - an ongoing process which, like most scientific discoveries, takes substantial time - is all over and done with, snapshot right here, look, zero proof so zero sasquatch. When they haven't come up with one piece of evidence that indicates that this confirmation isn't going to happen or the effort is wasted. Not one. ATTENTION BIGFOOT SKEPTICS! If you were getting funding for your efforts, you would have been cut off a couple of decades ago. Either let the big dogs hunt or find the big guy yourselves. Since you aren't going to prove it's all a concoction, which yes, if you don't understand this yet, is fully on you to do. You don't get to say that an effort that hasn't fully started yet is over because there is no conclusion. NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS OVER unless there is a conclusion. Come up with one, or cheerlead. Then you'd be doing something. Edited March 18, 2013 by DWA
Recommended Posts