southernyahoo Posted May 27, 2011 Posted May 27, 2011 You can consider me pinged Ze Tomes, but I do not have the end result as yet that you seek, therefore my hypothesis could be considered false until proven true. Aren't you simply asking for the proof, and the preceeding cogency of evidence? Without my end result I'm just another salesman with hungry pockets.
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 28, 2011 Posted May 28, 2011 You can consider me pinged Ze Tomes, but I do not have the end result as yet that you seek, therefore my hypothesis could be considered false until proven true. Aren't you simply asking for the proof, and the preceeding cogency of evidence? Without my end result I'm just another salesman with hungry pockets. No you are not, you're a believer as I am, only that I am a little more skeptic. Cheers my friend
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) ...only that I am a little more skeptic. Metepec creature analysis were also credited by "scientists" although the case itself is a total hoax, not to mention Jaime Maussan (a charlatan!) is behind this. And it's not Destination Truth, it's History Channel. History Channel: Hoax debunked (alcione.org): page Edited May 31, 2011 by ZeTomes
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 No you are not, you're a believer as I am, only that I am a little more skeptic. Cheers my friend zetomes, one of the truly great things i see on this board is the fact that most of the shall we say "believers" are probably the hardest on new "evidence"..... I have seen more hardcore debunking of evidence here than any place else on the net, and this is from people that have actually seen them...... I guess what I am trying to say it that many of the hardcore believers here will actually pick apart new evidence until some sort of answer is achieved.....to me they are more "skeptical" than some of the skeptic boards, lol...... but that is a good thing here, because hardly anyone here has the wool pulled over their eyes, even though they believe, they know the truth here regardless of fortune and fame........
Guest ZeTomes Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 zetomes, one of the truly great things i see on this board is the fact that most of the shall we say "believers" are probably the hardest on new "evidence"..... I have seen more hardcore debunking of evidence here than any place else on the net, and this is from people that have actually seen them...... I guess what I am trying to say it that many of the hardcore believers here will actually pick apart new evidence until some sort of answer is achieved.....to me they are more "skeptical" than some of the skeptic boards, lol...... but that is a good thing here, because hardly anyone here has the wool pulled over their eyes, even though they believe, they know the truth here regardless of fortune and fame........ take a look at this thread, I think you'll like it (also I'm looking for literature inherent to mythology and social roles in native regions of already discovered creatures) Cheers
Guest Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 zetomes, one of the truly great things i see on this board is the fact that most of the shall we say "believers" are probably the hardest on new "evidence"..... I have seen more hardcore debunking of evidence here than any place else on the net, and this is from people that have actually seen them...... I guess what I am trying to say it that many of the hardcore believers here will actually pick apart new evidence until some sort of answer is achieved.....to me they are more "skeptical" than some of the skeptic boards, lol...... but that is a good thing here, because hardly anyone here has the wool pulled over their eyes, even though they believe, they know the truth here regardless of fortune and fame........ Good observation! I agree.
Guest ZeTomes Posted June 1, 2011 Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) Good observation! I agree. What really intrigues me is noticing Bigfoot community not having a single paradigmatic case, or scientific validated documents (articles, thesis, journals, papers) concerning studied cases - which makes me seriously questioning if there are indeed any scientif field studies about bigfoot (collecting data, testemonies, corroboration of data) - because after I pose this question to the forum, none case was pointed (there aren't any or I am asking the wrong people) and I couldn't find any except sensasiionalistic claims or ambiguous "evidence". Which directs me to a question: if these hard-believers (apologists of scientific validation, scrutinization) have this serious posture (and the only favorable to bigfoot community and its scientific validation), why not the same way (an extension of complexity, because it's a net of people, and because they represent bigfoot subject, and because they have more personel and tools for proper field study) with bigfoot communities by what was mentioned before (scientific documentation)? In my opinion, it should be so. Edited June 1, 2011 by ZeTomes
southernyahoo Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 What really intrigues me is noticing Bigfoot community not having a single paradigmatic case, or scientific validated documents (articles, thesis, journals, papers) concerning studied cases - which makes me seriously questioning if there are indeed any scientif field studies about bigfoot (collecting data, testemonies, corroboration of data) - because after I pose this question to the forum, none case was pointed (there aren't any or I am asking the wrong people) and I couldn't find any except sensasiionalistic claims or ambiguous "evidence". Which directs me to a question: if these hard-believers (apologists of scientific validation, scrutinization) have this serious posture (and the only favorable to bigfoot community and its scientific validation), why not the same way (an extension of complexity, because it's a net of people, and because they represent bigfoot subject, and because they have more personel and tools for proper field study) with bigfoot communities by what was mentioned before (scientific documentation)? In my opinion, it should be so. It sounds like you are fishing for something Ze Tomes, would you like to discuss something like this? http://www.appalachianhistory.net/2010/07/yeahoh-yahoo-or-bigfoot.html
Guest ZeTomes Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 It sounds like you are fishing for something Ze Tomes, would you like to discuss something like this? http://www.appalachi...or-bigfoot.html That's exactly what I am searching for my friend Yahoo! Thank you
southernyahoo Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Ah yes, If I were ever to write a thesis on bigfoot, I would practically be obligated to address the writings of Jonathan Swift and the underlying question of whether he was inspired by a truth wouldn't I?
Guest ZeTomes Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Ah yes, If I were ever to write a thesis on bigfoot, I would practically be obligated to address the writings of Jonathan Swift and the underlying question of whether he was inspired by a truth wouldn't I? although I would like to read the book itself (link to it) take a look at this incredible orangutan Edited June 4, 2011 by ZeTomes
southernyahoo Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 Here would be the book Gullivers Travels. In the left column chapter 28 starts part 4 "Voyage to the Valley of the HOUYHNHNMS" The Yahoo is described therein. http://www.online-literature.com/swift/gulliver/
Guest ZeTomes Posted June 4, 2011 Posted June 4, 2011 I mean: Daniel Boone told tales of “killing a ten-foot, hairy giant he called a Yahoo
Guest ZeTomes Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 (edited) Yes, apparently. But there's any valid iterature inherent to Daniel Boone's yahoo episode you know about, my friend? cheers Edited June 12, 2011 by ZeTomes
Recommended Posts