Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 No. It's just that you can't show me your degree. You need to show me evidence that you are using it. Still with the credentials. They mean nothing unless you show me they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Finding Bigfoot can claim anything it wants. Nope, your assignment. Know why you're getting it? I don't need to convince you. But you need to do something other than needlessly carp. There is something. I'm satisfied, utterly. (FACT.) Satisfy yourself. (Not a finger will they lift. But They Are Right. yum hum.) I'm confused, you're claiming something as fact, ..excuse me FACT ( you did use all caps after all so it must really, really be a fact), yet you do not want to back up that claim? For shame! You are no better than the folks you disdain in this thread on a daily basis. No. It's just that you can't show me your degree. You need to show me evidence that you are using it. Still with the credentials. They mean nothing unless you show me they do. So it's not really about scientists and amateurs and credentials after all . That's all smoke and mirrors. It's about people that agree with you and your methods, and those that do not. Must be nice to decide your own definitions and shift them around as it pleases you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Well, wrongo wrongo. Nice to be able to respond so quickly. Especially after, like, 186 pages. Off to see if anybody's read up. There must be one bigfoot skeptic who can give me an actual argument. (Naaaaaaaaaaaaah.) I think we have a conclusion here. P.S. Maybe you should just send Bindernagel his book back. The only things that will change what you think are scienitifc confirmation or a personal experience. Then again, you might enjoy being here more if you actually thought about why people like Meldrum and Bindernagel would risk their reputations like this. (They're whacko. Duh. Forgot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 **** MOD STATEMENT **** YO!! REALLY DUDES??? SAME STORY, DIFFERENT TOPIC... GETTING CLOSE TO THE LINE FOLKS! BFF MANTRA = ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE ARGUER! CHILL OR PENALTIES. WARNED. GINGER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Scientific confirmation, personal experience, or compelling video or photographic evidence. I don't think any part of that is harsh. Especially when we're talking about something like Bigfoot. I think I'm being rather prudent. I didn't buy Bindernagels book because I thought it would change my mind. I bought to be more versed with the other side of the coin. When I look at what is available for evidence, it just doesn't impress me. So it leaves me wondering what in the world makes the other side tick. What I find to be rather difficult to believe, bordering on impossible, others insist upon being true. So I'm missing something. And it's not belief, not looking for that. Just something that might make me feel less like the only sane guy in an asylum so to speak. ( That was just an idiom choice, not trying to call people crazy or anything) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 The only things that will change what you think are scienitifc confirmation or a personal experience. We have a winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 BF is an outrageous claim. Having a desk is not. That is your personal opinion shaped by your perception. Which is based upon your own personal learning, experience and the memory thereof, which forms a learned expectation. So if anything, BF is an anomaly to you, not an "outrageous claim", stated by me. Supporting evidence for the claim that BF is a living, breathing creature exists. In fact, there are tons of it. The problem is that none of it, not a single iota yet, has been ultimately confirmed. Define ultimately confirmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Define ultimately confirmed? If I see one it's ultimately confirmed for me. So I'd have to presume it's been ultimately confirmed by thousands of people, if only for themselves individually. Given that most of us sail through most of our days on almost infallible perception of what's going on around us, I'd think that would mean something. But to some folks, guess it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Meaning all of the evidence to date supporting the claim of Bigfoot is conditional. It's conditional on BF being an actual animal. If there is no BF, then there are no BF tracks, photos, sightings, hair, etc. You see what I'm saying? Until BF is actually proven to exist, not just thought to exist, but a specimen has been retrieved and classified by science, then all the supporting evidence is still conditional evidence. It's too bad the world doesn't work that way, huh DWA? A weird statement to come from someone who professes to love science and the scientific method so much. Now you're saying we should all just go by what we can see and hear and tailor our own perceptions around that? So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 20, 2013 Admin Share Posted March 20, 2013 dmaker like i said earlier its going to take some compelling personal experience for u to possible soften your position or make u a flat out believer depending on what u experiece. i would guess iam somewhere in the 60% range of proponent per my experience. and i have been attacked by both skeptics and believers so there fore i feel iam some where in the middle. some one like drew would not become a believer if he came face to face with one per his words. his logic would force him to the conclusion what he saw was a hoax. i would guess that u are somewhere between me and him. i cannot be 100 percent sure they exist until i have my own sighting. and science cannot be 100% sure until they have a body. i would like to kill two birds with one stone:) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Meaning all of the evidence to date supporting the claim of Bigfoot is conditional. It's conditional on BF being an actual animal. If there is no BF, then there are no BF tracks, photos, sightings, hair, etc. You see what I'm saying? Until BF is actually proven to exist, not just thought to exist, but a specimen has been retrieved and classified by science, then all the supporting evidence is still conditional evidence. It's too bad the world doesn't work that way, huh DWA? A weird statement to come from someone who professes to love science and the scientific method so much. Now you're saying we should all just go by what we can see and hear and tailor our own perceptions around that? So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot. OK, then. The first paragraph not only shows ...I mean, like, wow, 186 pages give or take...it's supposed to be violently disagreeing with me, yet I could have written it (and probably did. Check out pages 8...16...25....45...54...um, 67...) The second paragraph claims that acting based on what you see is not a logical way to go about life. Cool story, bro. Um, er....who wants to test that one? You first. Tailor...our own...perceptions...around...what we see....and....hear....Um, yep, cool widdat. Better than driving to work with my eyes closed. But could just be me. Edited March 21, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 some one like drew would not become a believer if he came face to face with one per his words. his logic would force him to the conclusion what he saw was a hoax. I said "i would not shoot one", please don't put words in my mouth. If I saw one hit by a car, or hit one with mine, I would totally become a believer. If one attacked me, and I stuck it with my Kbar between the ribs, I'd become a believer. If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not become a believer. If I saw one running up on a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it had a heart attack, or broke it's leg, I would totally become a believer. If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, I would not tell anyone that I saw a Bigfoot. If I saw one running up a hill, in a semi-remote forest of Eastern Oklahoma, a football field away, and it collapsed, I would totally tell everyone I saw a Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 21, 2013 Admin Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) ^^^^ and the reason u wouldnt shoot one if u had a face to face encounter? i didnt think i was putting words in your mouth drew but thanks for clarifying i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it Edited March 25, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Quoted Text Directly Above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 "i personally feel like i could tell the difference between a guy in a suit and a squatch at fifty feet just by looking at it" You could. Probably much farther. One instant disqualifier of a "bigfoot video": It looks anything like a person. Other than upright, two arms, two legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) So it that a giant ball of gas up in the sky right now for you, or is it Apollo and his chariot? Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot. Oh. While we are on barrels, and fish. Giant ball of gas in the sky? The sun looks like THAT to you? You're something, you are. When did you confirm that whopper...? How many beers did that one take? You fly the wrong way on the redeye to Tampa and get Permanent Burn confirming your little tale? Or....could it be...you are taking someone else's word for what the sun is? Uh huh. When it is pick 'em, with the following choices: 1) the person who saw it; 2) the scientist who has pronounced authentic, through cogent analysis the scientist walks you through, copious evidence that the thing that person saw was real; or 3) The scientists who say, no, we weren't there, and no, we haven't examined the evidence, but 1) didn't see that because it isn't real and no, we can't tell you a good reason we are saying that Which one are you taking? The kookoo one, sounds like it. "Sometimes investigation is required to explain what our eyes cannot?" Uh huh. And sometimes unbeknownst to some people that investigation is actually going on, and they don't know it, and it points to the reality of something they aren't comfortable acknowledging. Edited March 22, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts