Drew Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 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. Bigfoot is real, it is not a creature however. I am dedicated to finding out what it is. I can offer far more realistic explanations of Bigfoot's existence than anyone who is claiming Bigfoot is a Giant, Hairy Bipedal, Wood-ape from Eastern Oklahoma. The sooner people open their minds to some of the legitimate explanations for Bigfoot, the sooner you will stop being tricked by the Top-Rung of Bigfooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Bigfoot is real, it is not a creature however. You have no standing whatsoever to make any critical remarks regarding the scientific approach of others when you make a statement like that. Among the panoply of options that explain the phenomenon, the animal being real is one. At least I qualify my declarative statements with a realistic grasp of how the world works. To me, you sound like a rank hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djj Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 What is bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) ........Consider this my parting remark to you..... Time is a valuable thing. 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. I recently raised this point as well. I should have phrased it as tactfully. Bigfoot is real, it is not a creature however. I am dedicated to finding out what it is. I can offer far more realistic explanations of Bigfoot's existence than anyone who is claiming Bigfoot is a Giant, Hairy Bipedal, Wood-ape from Eastern Oklahoma. The sooner people open their minds to some of the legitimate explanations for Bigfoot, the sooner you will stop being tricked by the Top-Rung of Bigfooters. We're all ears. I'd love to hear an alternate explanation. I always appreciate hearing peoples opinion, specifically on the subject of Bigfoot. I find that following those types of threads is much more interesting than following the type of threads where one poster continually harrasses another poster over their ideas. With 1575 posts, you have probably seen those types of threads on here before. If you do happen to start another thread to explain your theory, I feel confident that it might possibly blossom into a fascinating and constructive discussion. Edited March 19, 2013 by BigGinger To remove objectionable content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 If you do happen to start another thread to explain your theory, I feel confident that it might possibly blossom into a fascinating and constructive discussion. Stranger things have happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 You have no standing whatsoever to make any critical remarks regarding the scientific approach of others when you make a statement like that. Among the panoply of options that explain the phenomenon, the animal being real is one. At least I qualify my declarative statements with a realistic grasp of how the world works. To me, you sound like a rank hypocrite. I absolutely have standing to critically examine the scientific approach of others, especially when they fire mulitiple shotgun rounds in close proximity to other humans, lawfully allowed to be in the area, and then post the story on their public website, as though it is a badge of honor. I'd like you to compare my statement, to your "100% POSITIVE" statement earlier in the thread, and tell me how we differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I absolutely have standing to critically examine the scientific approach of others, especially when they fire mulitiple shotgun rounds in close proximity to other humans, lawfully allowed to be in the area... WOW, it's as if you were there!! Oh, not it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) I'd like you to compare my statement, to your "100% POSITIVE" statement earlier in the thread, and tell me how we differ. I said I knew it was real because I have seen and experienced them, though I didn't expect anyone to take my word for it as proof. You said they were essentially figments of people's imaginations but, from what I can tell, I've put myself in a position to have had actual experiences with the animal while you have shown a remarkable lack of comprehension regarding such germane subjects as the size and scope of the wilderness areas of our country, how animals move and populate an area (both as individuals and a population), how naturalists conduct research, how responsible firearms owners act while hunting, along with an insulting degree of dismissiveness to those in my organization. Among other things. Readers of this can weigh the relative value of both our points of view. You say you're dedicated to finding out what bigfoot is, but totally discount a real and actual possibility before even trying. My advice is, to use the popular saying, put up or shut up. You're not going to discover the truth about bigfoot by cluelessly critiquing the work of others. Edited March 19, 2013 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 ...... especially when they fire mulitiple shotgun rounds in close proximity to other humans, lawfully allowed to be in the area......... This happens daily around the entire country at shooting ranges. I'm guessing you've never hunted on any public lands, or a crowded lease during any bird season. A shotgun is only hazardous at very limited ranges. By the time something is hard to identify, they are far beyond hazardous range. While your concern for the publics safety is touching. They are within the law on private property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Ever been hunting Drew? People fire shots in close proximity to others all the time. It's not uncommon at all. Not sure why this is an issue to you. Oops, Edit - Didn't see Irish's response. Edited March 19, 2013 by Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Bipto, mayhaps you should attempt to knife the animals, rather than shoot them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 HEY-O! Just don't try it on a BFRO expedition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I absolutely have standing to critically examine the scientific approach of others, especially when they fire mulitiple shotgun rounds in close proximity to other humans, lawfully allowed to be in the area, and then post the story on their public website, as though it is a badge of honor. I'd like you to compare my statement, to your "100% POSITIVE" statement earlier in the thread, and tell me how we differ. Drew, put the shotgun down and make useful contributions to the conversation. This ain't one. Only people paying attention can talk intelligently about this. Start paying some. This know-nothing approach gets tiresome. If you think you have useful alternative explanations for all the evidence, we have not seen the first one yet. (No. Clinical assessments require actual patient visits. Anyone knowing that fact knows why bipto has you beat on credibility down the line). Come on. You are smarter than this. Show it. You failed to inherit the humility gene in your family, which is problematical when the critical thinking gene is pulling a 404. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 I'm not sure why Drew seems to be personally offended by the postion of me and my group, but if I were someone who was totally sure that something was not true and watched someone else say that it was to a bunch of people seemingly eager to hear it, I'd be pretty pissed, too. It gets to the core of my position with regard to the claims we made regarding activity over Persistence and in Area X in general and should be even more clear once my presentation from our conference is made available: We are either lying or wood apes are real. Period. There is no in between. Clearly, Drew thinks we're lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 **** MOD STATEMENT **** TOO MANY POSTS ARE COMING TOO CLOSE TO CROSSING THE LINE OF PERSONAL ATTACK!! THIS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!! BFF MANTRA = ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE ARGUER!! CONSIDER THIS A VERBAL WARNING FOR ALL AND ADJUST YOUR POSTING ACCORDINGLY. ANY FOLLOWING ACTION WILL COME WITH PENALTY!! GINGER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts