Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 ^That's "plus worthy"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Alright, what exactly were the circumstances? There's no reason for me to get into them. Already, I say (without any real details) that there has been more than one incidence with gunfire and there's second guessing and "that seems odd" statements. Of course it seems odd because the specifics aren't known. The only information anyone here has is 1) there were about six episodes, and 2) they were apparently unproductive. Each person will construct the events in their heads with the details at hand (none) and make a conclusion for themselves. Therefore, it is odd. However, I can tell you this wasn't a shooting gallery kind of set up. Let's pretend I accept your invitation and tell you the specifics of each incident. Not only would I be divulging behavioral attributes we're better off not releasing, I'd open the can of worms of having to defend each and every occurrence until the cows came home from god knows who. But, having not seen the area or experienced the activity or even knowing the individuals involved, there would still be endless debate about it requiring me to defend or clarify or otherwise repeat myself ad infinitum and, frankly, I'm not interested. My role as spokesman doesn't require I divulge everything I know or even all the specifics of the things I've already said. In fact, I'd say it's specifically my job not to. I don't say this to be a ****. Really, I don't. It's just how things need to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 A truly critical thinker will stop with the double-guessing, take the available information for what it is, and wait and see how it all unfolds. A 'truly critical thinker' will simply accept someone's word that something is true? Especially something that there has been no definitive evidence of? And Bipto, what would you say, as a critical thinker, if you read this? I'm just saying, a "you are being hoaxed" option is silly. What we say we have seen cannot be done by guys in suits. Should I accept this at face value, or explore other more likely alternatives(pending evidence of your claims)? Have you provided any evidence that the things you have seen can't be done by people in suits? I'm not saying that you didn't see things that preclude a hoax, but am I to accept that, or should I continue to explore other options until you put forth some evidence? How about providing valid evidence that they in fact are either being hoaxed or making it up, Drew? Until there is evidence supporting the claim that there are Unclassified Wood Apes in Eastern Oklahoma, how can I do this? You want me to provide evidence that the Wood Apes, which we have no evidence of, are NOT living in the rugged mountains of Eastern Oklahoma? How would you propose I do this? Don't we need some proof that they exist, before you go demanding that I prove they don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 If I said I saw a wood ape fly through the air with a rainbow following behind, would I need to demonstrate how a guy in a monkey suit couldn't be responsible before a "critical thinker" would dismiss the possibility of a hoax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Not if you had video of it, or dragged it out of the woods, rainbow and all! Edited October 1, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) No, I'm not talking about proof that I saw a rainbow crapping flying sasquatch, just that I said I saw one. If I said I saw a bigfoot doing something no person could do, would it be enough to say a human could not be responsible? Absent proof, would it not be more likely that the person saying they saw it was lying? Or telling the truth. Edited October 1, 2012 by bipto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) No, I'm not talking about proof that I saw a rainbow crapping flying sasquatch, just that I said I saw one. If I said I saw a bigfoot doing something no person could do, would it be enough to say a human could not be responsible? Absent proof, would it not be more likely that the person saying they saw it was lying? Or telling the truth. Of course, absent any evidence, either they were lying, or mis-identifying what they saw, perhaps adding something to the sighting that wasn't really there. Which could of course happen with size and speed observations, as you well know. Would you not agree with me on that? Edited October 1, 2012 by Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Sure, in the abstract, but we're talking, at least partially, about something I saw. I can tell you nothing has been added to the account of what I observed. If anything, I've not said things I can't be certain of. There was a very large, dark animal moving up a rocky mountainside at speeds vastly faster than a human could and in manner unlike that of indigenous specie. *Could* be misidentification, as I've said in the past, though luckily, I had co-witnesses who saw it better than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 So, as a critical thinker, would you accept your description? Knowing that there is no actual evidence of the claims you are making? or would you maintain other options until that evidence was proffered? If you said you saw a Grizzly Bear in Upstate New York, and you knew it couldn't be a black bear, simply because of things that you saw that mean it couldn't be a black bear, I would think you saw a Black Bear but were mistaking it for a Grizzly Bear. It's not personal, it's just that there is no evidence that Grizzly Bears live in Upstate New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 But you're not saying I've mistaken a black bear for a grizzly. You're saying I saw a guy in a grizzly suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) A 'truly critical thinker' will simply accept someone's word that something is true? Especially something that there has been no definitive evidence of? And Bipto, what would you say, as a critical thinker, if you read this? Here it goes: I did not say to accept everything as 'true', but to stop with the double guessing because it will get everybody no where. I said to take the available information 'as is' because there is no way you can falsify or verify it. If you don't believe their word then just say you don't believe it. No need to speculate on what could be going on. It's disingenuous at best. Let's follow through to the end of your logic. Ask yourself these questions: Can you falsify or verify what Bipto and the TBRC are saying? Can you / are you willing to obtain more information than what is currently available? Are you in a position to receive know more than what is being made available? Would you rather propagate the theory that there are people in suits hoaxing the TBRC than that this is an elaborate scam? And for the record, I have no affiliation with Bipto or the TBRC. *edited to not sound like a Mod* Edited October 1, 2012 by poignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbhunter Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 My problem with the above back and forth is this; Regardless on the stance pro and con, the fact is depending on your own belief, people with totally oppsite views are not going to force the other in believing the other's opinion. Either can get bogged down with answering question after question to defend what he is trying to share. That get's absolutely NOWHERE for both sides. I think stating your opinion in a respectful manner and agree to disagree on some of the aspects of the thread, will help it move along and hopefully more questions can be answered as it progresses. We want both sides because the need for a skeptical view is healthy for all, but when it deterioates the thread to just verbal jabs, it no longer is beneficial to either side. KB 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 But you're not saying I've mistaken a black bear for a grizzly. You're saying I saw a guy in a grizzly suit. Yes, but you are not exactly claiming to have seen a Grizzly bear in this case, you are claiming to see the ultimate biological find of the 21st century. A large, hairy, unclassified wood-ape, with intelligence on a par with humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 OK, I'm done. Think whatever you want, Drew. I'm not expending any more effort on this conversation. (Which is to say, I'm done with Drew and his fixation on human hoaxers, not with the forum or this thread. I advise everyone else to be done with Drew, too, but you're all free people and I'm not a moderator, so do what you want.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Hi Bipto, any new updates for us? When is podcast 41 coming out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts