Guest Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 What does he have to report. Um, tracks, of an animal, seen by thousands of sober witnesses, consistent characters of which have been described by scientists with directly relevant expertise, which, um, far exceeds, er, yours? Whoa whoa whoa - our hypothetical wildlife guy found all that in the woods today? Oh then I guess you're right. Bigfoot is real after all. And you won't. Simple as that. Red herring. Except that I DID, quite publicly in fact, discuss my "bipedal footfall" encounter from a couple of years ago, with colleagues in my department, with friends, here at the BFF, and on the JREF. I've also had biologists (including people in my employ) explain their weird observations to me. So I've done this, people with whom I work have done this, people who work for me have done this . . . but thanks for letting me know that I wouldn't do this, and I assume by association that no one else would either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Just for the record I've never seen Bigfoot, had an interesting "stalking" incident when I was 17 but it could just have been a person....and back to the background noise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 What does he have to report. Um, tracks, of an animal, seen by thousands of sober witnesses, consistent characters of which have been described by scientists with directly relevant expertise, which, um, far exceeds, er, yours? Whoa whoa whoa - our hypothetical wildlife guy found all that in the woods today? Oh then I guess you're right. Bigfoot is real after all. And you won't. Simple as that. Red herring. Except that I DID, quite publicly in fact, discuss my "bipedal footfall" encounter from a couple of years ago, with colleagues in my department, with friends, here at the BFF, and on the JREF. I've also had biologists (including people in my employ) explain their weird observations to me. So I've done this, people with whom I work have done this, people who work for me have done this . . . but thanks for letting me know that I wouldn't do this, and I assume by association that no one else would either. No, you can just assume from the evidence all around you. I'd love to see the texts of those discussions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Thread over. Saskeptic wins, DWA gets angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 I am allergic to conspiracy theories Saskeptic, as you are too I believe. In your hypothetical though, how likely is it the guy is going to file a report, request further resources, contact other agencies, etc.? Not very. Because he's given no incentive to do that, and every incentive not to. If he finds a bigfoot at the end of that track, then I'd wager that he'd be very likely to share that information with his co-workers, his wife, his boss, his neighbor, Wolf Blitzer, etc. If he doesn't find a bigfoot at the end of the track, then what exactly does he have to report? He's just one more person whose found some impressions in the ground that could have been made by a bigfoot, hoaxed to be thought of as from a bigfoot, or simply misidentified from something else. What kind of resources does he request, and to do what, exactly? What other agencies should he contact, and why? This is where it falls apart. Scientists and biologists in wildlife agencies are no more able to go and collect a piece of bigfoot than anyone else, and if you ask me they'd be far less able to do that than, for example, Sasfooty. CLM? Career Limiting Move. (Although I love your take on that TLA, DWA) Thanks. I've had lots of training for my positions in state government. They don't want us to drink on the job, embezzle, use computers to look at porn or download current movies, text while driving, etc. Never once have I been instructed not to report something weird I might have seen in the field. You see, if they tell you not to report a BF sighting, that would be an acknowledgement that they know of BF. It would be more interesting to see what happened if you actually reported seeing one. Then gauge the response from there. Edit - BTW, a good friend of mine tried to report his sighting to several agencies in the PNW. He was indeed brushed off, with not so much as a 'well, let's go see the area where you had your multiple hour encounter' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) Thread over. Saskeptic wins, DWA gets angry. Point to me where. Go ahead. I'm giving you a chance to make the first cogent point I have seen from you. Don't blow it now. (Particularly by pointing to where saskeptic won. That would be blowing it. Big time.) (edited to help Drew uphold reputation) Edited June 11, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Point to me where. Go ahead. I'm giving you a chance to make the first cogent point I have seen from you. Don't blow it now. Everywhere. At every turn. Your inability to realise you have lost an argument doesn't mean you haven't lost it. Does anyone other than WSA actually think you have won? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Cotter: "You see, if they tell you not to report a BF sighting, that would be an acknowledgement that they know of BF." And read this one for more totally rational behavior from management agencies: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=29230 Point to me where. Go ahead. I'm giving you a chance to make the first cogent point I have seen from you. Don't blow it now. Everywhere. At every turn. Your inability to realise you have lost an argument doesn't mean you haven't lost it. Does anyone other than WSA actually think you have won? OK, where I was angry, fail; where I lost; fail. Hey Drew, do me a favor. YOU make the bigfoot call. And tape it for me. I'd love to hear it. And get out more, I can tell you from personal experience it helps, although some, well, not much. Cotter: "You see, if they tell you not to report a BF sighting, that would be an acknowledgement that they know of BF." And read this one for more totally rational behavior from management agencies: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=29230 I do find it funny that in these discussions - as also, we can see, in the office - it's the cool, rational skeptics that lose their cookies and bring emotion into the discussion. Just noting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) OK, where I was angry, fail; where I lost; fail. Hey Drew, do me a favor. YOU make the bigfoot call. And tape it for me. I'd love to hear it. And get out more, I can tell you from personal experience it helps, although some, well, not much. I do find it funny that in these discussions - as also, we can see, in the office - it's the cool, rational skeptics that lose their cookies and bring emotion into the discussion. Just noting. Nobody is being emotional. You, as usual, are attempting to be condescending, using the word 'fail' in lieu of an argument, and assuming that everyone who doesn't explicitly say you are wrong thinks you are right. Which last is much the same approach you use in filtering Bigfoot evidence. Edited June 11, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 OK, where I was angry, fail; where I lost; fail. Hey Drew, do me a favor. YOU make the bigfoot call. And tape it for me. I'd love to hear it. And get out more, I can tell you from personal experience it helps, although some, well, not much. I do find it funny that in these discussions - as also, we can see, in the office - it's the cool, rational skeptics that lose their cookies and bring emotion into the discussion. Just noting. Nobody is being emotional. You, as usual, are attempting to be condescending, using the word 'fail' in lieu of an argument, and assuming that everyone who doesn't explicitly say you are wrong thinks you are right. Which last is much the same approach you use to filtering Bigfoot evidence. There's a Latin name for what you're doing (using "you lost the argument, everywhere, all the time!" as one's counterargument), but I can't remember what it is. Can anyone help? You and some others here may be the most effective Bigfoot evidence filters known to man. Nothing gets through. Impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Ha! Not sure I can even follow this thread anymore....and I might be as guilty as anyone as for causing that. I'd try to quote my quotes and get myself back on track, but I'm pretty sure it is illegal in this jurisdiction. Does that mean I lose? Or do I get to play again tomorow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 There's a Latin name for what you're doing (using "you lost the argument, everywhere, all the time!" as one's counterargument), but I can't remember what it is. Can anyone help? You and some others here may be the most effective Bigfoot evidence filters known to man. Nothing gets through. Impressive. My problem here is nothing to do with the existence or otherwise of Bigfoot. Bigfoot may exist. Even if Bigfoot does exist, your position is hopelessly and fundamentally wrong. It's the appallingly irrational and inconsistent nature of your arguments that is irritating, not the fact you think Bigfoot exists. Most people who think Bigfoot exists are quite capable of seeing the weakness of your arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 And they never point it out...and once again, neither do you. (You're doing that Latin thing again. And getting upset.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) And they never point it out...and once again, neither do you. (You're doing that Latin thing again. And getting upset.) Why do you keep on about people getting upset? Does it give you some kind of joy? Sorry to burst your bubble but I'm not upset. And once again, the fact that people don't say you're wrong, doesn't mean they think you're right. Taken in conjunction with your belief that any un-disproven anecdote must be true (as long as it's about something you personally believe - un-disproven anecdotes about UFOs are apparently by default untrue, to you), a pattern emerges. Edited June 11, 2013 by Llawgoch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Well then you can just show me where I'm wrong rather than using YOU ARE WRONG! rants as your entire argument. By the way, you couldn't get my oft-stated-here position any wronger than you do...which doesn't bode well for the assignment I just set you. But try anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts