Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 ^^^Well, NAWAC has "Persistence" taken, so "Operation Humor."
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 How many natives versed in the movements and tactics of wood apes are hunting them for their meat in North America? Zero, because native hunters need to provide for their families, they can't afford to go hunting for something that doesn't exist. There's your "scientific rigor" poking out of your pants, again. Come on, Drew. Admit it. You know bigfoot is real. Deep down. Don't you?
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 ^^^He is looking for reassurance, bipto. GIVE HIM REASSURANCE, or neither I nor the society can take responsibility for what happens next...
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Quick question, Drew. Because of the vast number of links that come up with I search "reports of animals doing supernatural things" on Google, should I doubt any reported behavior of dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, goldfish, and parakeets? Just because there's a fraction of people out there who say things like this, should I dismiss any and all reports of these animals activities? I expect I should, based on your logic. Help me out here. Please, as you say, show your work. No, why would I care if someone saw an animal that EXISTS doing supernatural things? A dog called 911, no big deal, it is a real animal. Search for "Unicorn doing supernatural things in the CircleK parking Lot" and see what comes up. That's not your argument. Your argument is "we should totally discount all witness bigfoot reports because a tiny percentage of them include paranormal attributes" (my paraphrase, of course). But, as I've shown, even perfectly real, perfectly normal and boring animals are sometimes given supernatural abilities from certain (imbalanced) people. Tell me again why the tiny percentage of bigfoot reports with these kinds of elements should make all bigfoot encounter reports invalid when it's clear that the lack of that percentage would be more remarkable than its existence? Drew, spend a few minutes and watch this: Just the part where Mark relates his encounter. Then come back here and tell me about the unicorns. Listening to him, it seems clear to me he was neither misidentifying the animal (more than six feet tall, upright, black, etc.) or that it was a human in a suit (high-powered rifle, etc.). I want you to tell me what what kind of encounter you think this is. Is he lying? Or did he encounter what you say isn't real? Or something else? Context.
the parkie Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 How many natives versed in the movements and tactics of wood apes are hunting them for their meat in North America? Zero presumably. I don't quite follow the logic of why that clearly demonstrates that wood apes are only equally as elusive as gorillas and chimps and not more so though. Perhaps a better question might be "How many natives are hunting or searching for primates in North America?" Presumably your argument is that it is only due to the 'numbers game' and I think I would accept that argument if the number of NA wood apes shot and killed were very low, in single figures even, but I'm not convinced by that argument when it's absolutely zero. ^Exactly Bipto. Additionally, what is the population comparison between the 2 species? No idea - do you know? By the way, I would like to point out that I am NOT of the opinion that wood apes do not exist. I think it is entirely plausible that they do and I follow Bipto and his organisation's activities with great interest. He is one of the small number of participants on this forum whose posts I always read and actively seek out due to the level-headed and articulate nature of his comments. I am merely seeking to have an open and intelligent debate about the subject with people of a like-minded attitude. Maybe this clarification will spare me from some pointless diatribe from other users, although probably not.
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I don't quite follow the logic of why that clearly demonstrates that wood apes are only equally as elusive as gorillas and chimps and not more so though. Because hardly anyone on this continent is looking for wood apes (present company excluded, of course) whereas generations of natives in Africa have been hunting gorillas and monkeys. Presumably, they're getting pretty good at it. Nobody here has their level of experience or skill. By the way, I would like to point out that I am NOT of the opinion that wood apes do not exist. No, I don't think you are.
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 The total field time that has been spent in NA looking for wood apes, over the past 50 years, is approximately that Africans spend looking for bush meat in a month. And almost all that time has been spent trying to learn Thing One about them, rather than capitalizing on generations of shared and accepted knowledge
Drew Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 That's not your argument. Your argument is "we should totally discount all witness bigfoot reports because a tiny percentage of them include paranormal attributes" (my paraphrase, of course). But, as I've shown, even perfectly real, perfectly normal and boring animals are sometimes given supernatural abilities from certain (imbalanced) people. NO. my argument is, we should discount all Bigfoot reports (including yours, until you provide evidence) because there is no decent evidence that they exist. My point with the paranormal bigfoot, is how can YOU discount the paranormal Bigfoot sightings, when they have as much decent evidence of paranormal/ufo bigfoots as you do of Wood Apes?
Guest DWA Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 ^^^Operation Laugh Riot...? There is plenty of decent evidence. Talking past it doesn't change simple facts.
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 ...we should discount all Bigfoot reports (including yours, until you provide evidence) because there is no decent evidence that they exist. And my point is reports of their existence is evidence that they exist (not the only evidence, but evidence nonetheless). But you want to wrap it up with UFOs and say it's a horse a piece. The reports I'm talking about, that have been investigated by real people talking to other real people — in fact, the majority of what's been published at the usual websites and the entirely of what's been published by the NAWAC — have an internal consistency that suggests the behavior of a real animal. Tiny percentage of weird, fringy things aside. This is the point you refuse to admit. People seeing something is evidence of something. True or false?
Drew Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Wow. I am stunned that you would condone firing a high powered rifle from that position at an unidentified thing. You should practice better firearm discipline. That story is just like every other story of Bigfoot. Lot's of emotion, lots of acting like you know what your doing, fancy words, with directions, so it sounds like you are actually investigating something, and another bigfooter trampling all over the area where hair and blood would have been had he hit one with his rifle.
Cotter Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 ^Exactly Bipto. Additionally, what is the population comparison between the 2 species? No idea - do you know? Hi Parkie - not at all, but I wanted to point out that making any comparison to a known population of apes cannot be done w/o knowing the population of BF. (I can tell you, I know of 1.5 acres where they do not, under any circumstance reside). However, in my opinion, if BF does indeed exist (I am a strong proponent of the possibility), there numbers will not be anywhere near those of the gorilla.
Guest Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Wow. I am stunned that you would condone firing a high powered rifle from that position at an unidentified thing. You should practice better firearm discipline. That's very funny. That story is just like every other story of Bigfoot. Lot's of emotion, lots of acting like you know what your doing, fancy words, with directions, so it sounds like you are actually investigating something, and another bigfooter trampling all over the area where hair and blood would have been had he hit one with his rifle. Right. So is he lying or did he see a bigfoot? Or was it something else? Tell me.
Cotter Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 You guys ever see the movie Zombie Land? The reason Woody Harrelson's character hates the zombies so much? I'm not going to pry, but there may be a similarity here.... ;-)
Drew Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 This is the point you refuse to admit. People seeing something is evidence of something. True or false? People saying they see something is evidence of something. People thinking they see something is evidence of something. People seeing something is evidence to themselves of something. Scientists seeing something is evidence to themselves of something. The difference is, the scientist won't make the claim until they can back it up.
Recommended Posts