Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

^^ What, exactly, did I say that is not factual?

 

Do you have to ask? I thought my response was clear and to the point when I quoted you as saying, "Could you explain to me how you are not doing the exact same thing when you, and all the other proponents, push for science/scientists to spend their time searching for Bigfoot?" You then follow with, "But it's ok in your case because your preference is pro-Bigfoot"

 

 

I am "pro-Bigfoot" in case you were unaware of that and I do not think that its the scientist job to be out looking for the Sasquatch. I do think however they should take the time to evaluate the evidence, which some do. That is what I said in the previous post and am saying it once again.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, on the other hand, do think that it's science's job to be confirming sasquatch.

 

There's tons of consistent evidence, more than for any other phenomenon that remains unproven; confirmation would lead to an explosion in all the related sciences as the rules suddenly and drastically change; and....AND WE DELEGATE TO SCIENCE THIS JOB.  To view it any other way is to make science our master and not the other way around.

 

At the very least, the mainstream needs to drop the uninformed opposition to the very idea that makes inquiry taboo. 

 

Homo floresiensis wasn't enough of a shot across the bow?  Neandertals-bred-with-us and Denisovans neither?  Come on.  If science really thinks that lemurs rode rafts to Madagascar, and that humans without firearms took only 2,000 years or so to exterminate the Pleistocene megafauna, and they do, surely they can hold in their brains the possibility of higher primates on the only continent, save Australia and Antarctica, not now known to hold any but us.  That circumstance isn't in the slightest peculiar?  Oh, OK.

 

(Try those above scenarios on your typical anthropologist of 40 years ago.  You'd be branded a loon.)

 

All right, off soapbox.

 

There seems to be this idea that people are "pro-Bigfoot" because of some predetermined - by heredity? - "rooting interest."  That's not how I got there, nor how anyone else did that I'm famiiliar with.

 

We simply felt that the evidence left an intelligent, objective person of scientific bent with no other reasonable conclusion.

 

It's steadfast a priori denial of anything one isn't comfortable with that is the "rooting interest," i.e., the True Belief, here.

 

Just clarifying.  As you were, gentlemen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

The question was aimed at Sweaty, not you, but it's an open discussion. I just wanted to make sure you were clear that I was not directly addressing you.  Searching can be physically out there looking in the woods, or in a lab. How is "evaluating evidence" not assisting in the search for Bigfoot? If you want to split hairs and call me out because you are against scientists spending time in the woods, but you are ok with them spending time in a lab, well then great for you. My main point, that I have expressed several times in the last couple of days, was that ( in my opinion) science should not be spending any effort on Sasquatch. Period.   I make no distinction between that effort being in the woods or the labs. I guess you feel it is important to distinguish between the two. Not sure why, or what difference it makes, but okay....duly noted Sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

@DWA. again with the skeptics must be "uncomfortable" with the idea of Sasquatch. I can assure you, as I have many, many times in the past, I have zero comfort issues with Bigfoot. The discovery of Bigfoot would be a pleasant surprise for my life, that is it. It's not going to rock me to my foundation, or make me uncomfortable or afraid, or any such nonsense.  I am not particularly religious, so I have no issues there with BF being real; I don't live in a forest so I'm not afraid of a sudden rash of BF led home invasions; I have never ran over one with my car that I know of, so not afraid of BF vendettas. In fact I can think of no reason why BF being discovered and revealed the world would make me uncomfortable. Aside, from a healthy heaping of crow for dinner, I would welcome the event.  The reason I don't believe in BF is because I do not find the evidence compelling. That is ALL there is to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you, discomfort is at the very heart of it.

 

Why not just let it alone, walk away, and let the thing resolve itself?  Particularly when nothing one can say, scream, yell or rant means anything to the simple reality?

 

I mean, that's what I do with crop circles; minds bending spoons; mummies walking at night; Mothman; chupacabras; Nessie; etc.

 

I'll never figure out what is so hard about "unresolved."

 

(And of course I need to add that sasquatch is in a separate league from all that other stuff.  But if you view it the way you do all that other stuff, then why care?)

Edited by DWA
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

The question was aimed at Sweaty, not you, but it's an open discussion. I just wanted to make sure you were clear that I was not directly addressing you.

You may have been speaking directly to Sweaty, but when you said 'all proponents' and 'pro bigfoot' ... you included me.

Searching can be physically out there looking in the woods, or in a lab. How is "evaluating evidence" not assisting in the search for Bigfoot? If you want to split hairs and call me out because you are against scientists spending time in the woods, but you are ok with them spending time in a lab, well then great for you.

I did not say that scientist shouldn't be out in the woods looking for Sasquatch. I said it is not their responsibility to be out there looking for it.

My main point, that I have expressed several times in the last couple of days, was that ( in my opinion) science should not be spending any effort on Sasquatch. Period. I make no distinction between that effort being in the woods or the labs. I guess you feel it is important to distinguish between the two. Not sure why, or what difference it makes, but okay....duly noted Sir.

Science doesn't go out directly looking for criminals, but I bet you have no problem with it joining in to prove one's innocence or guilt when evidence is presented to them. I believe that they have a responsibility to look into the evidence when it comes to the Sasquatch, especially when it can be hired out and/or available to evaluate other forms of evidence. in other words I agreed with some of what you said, but not to the extent you were implying. We can disagree on most everything if you like, but we shouldn't disagree on wanting to keep the record accurate.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

I assure you, discomfort is at the very heart of it.

 

Why not just let it alone, walk away, and let the thing resolve itself?  Particularly when nothing one can say, scream, yell or rant means anything to the simple reality?

 

I mean, that's what I do with crop circles; minds bending spoons; mummies walking at night; Mothman; chupacabras; Nessie; etc.

 

I'll never figure out what is so hard about "unresolved."

 

 

I would really appreciate it if you would stop telling me what is at the heart of my opinions. Thank-you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 The reason I don't believe in BF is because I do not find the evidence compelling. That is ALL there is to it.

 

Then why does someone need to ask you over and over again for a rational explanation for certain details as to how particular pieces of evidence could be duplicated. If you scoff at the evidence because you didn't find it compelling, then you must have given the matter enough thought to help someone else understand it as well. Like I said before - Saying its a man in a suit that strode across that sandbar and leaving behind deep impressions in the ground doesn't cut it when a man not wearing a suit walks across the same sandbar and doesn't leave deep impressions in the ground. I hope you didn't agree with the building of scaffolds and hand digging each print by hand proposal ... or the troweling the sandbar afterwards to erase the deep impressions that a mere man must have left between each hand dug track ... so let us hear your well thought out opinion.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 The reason I don't believe in BF is because I do not find the evidence compelling. That is ALL there is to it.

 

Then why does someone need to ask you over and over again for a rational explanation for certain details as to how particular pieces of evidence could be duplicated. If you scoff at the evidence because you didn't find it compelling, then you must have given the matter enough thought to help someone else understand it as well.

 

I don't find the evidence for crop circles; minds bending spoons; mummies walking at night; Mothman; chupacabras; Nessie; ESP; alien spacecraft; etc. compelling either.

 

But I freely admit the reason might be that I just haven't reviewed the evidence enough.  So you will never see me on a site that talks about those things, because I am content to wait for the proof if they're real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 The reason I don't believe in BF is because I do not find the evidence compelling. That is ALL there is to it.

 

Then why does someone need to ask you over and over again for a rational explanation for certain details as to how particular pieces of evidence could be duplicated. If you scoff at the evidence because you didn't find it compelling, then you must have given the matter enough thought to help someone else understand it as well. Like I said before - Saying its a man in a suit that strode across that sandbar and leaving behind deep impressions in the ground doesn't cut it when a man not wearing a suit walks across the same sandbar and doesn't leave deep impressions in the ground. I hope you didn't agree with the building of scaffolds and hand digging each print by hand proposal ... or the troweling the sandbar afterwards to erase the deep impressions that a mere man must have left between each hand dug track ... so let us hear your well thought out opinion.

 

I think perhaps our disconnect, Bigfoothunter, is that I am not commenting on the PGF specifically. I have stated my opinion on it elsewhere in more than one thread. I don't have any real opinion on it. I look at it and it looks fake and does not engage me. I don't need to go much deeper than thought to have , what I have freely described as a "gut reaction".  This does not dismiss the work done by folks like Bill Munns. It just simply is what it is--my personal feeling when I look at the PGF. That is where I leave any discussion on Patty and the film. My comments, to date, in this thread were about Bigfoot the creature, not the PGF or any details around that event. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ @DWA, just because you are uncomfortable with minds bending spoons does not give you the right to dismiss the evidence as not compelling. Are you afraid of minds that can bend cutlery? ;)    

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The question was aimed at Sweaty, not you, but it's an open discussion. I just wanted to make sure you were clear that I was not directly addressing you.  Searching can be physically out there looking in the woods, or in a lab. How is "evaluating evidence" not assisting in the search for Bigfoot? If you want to split hairs and call me out because you are against scientists spending time in the woods, but you are ok with them spending time in a lab, well then great for you. My main point, that I have expressed several times in the last couple of days, was that ( in my opinion) science should not be spending any effort on Sasquatch. Period.   I make no distinction between that effort being in the woods or the labs. I guess you feel it is important to distinguish between the two. Not sure why, or what difference it makes, but okay....duly noted Sir.

 

 

I should have time to answer your question later on tonight, dmaker. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you, discomfort is at the very heart of it.

 

Why not just let it alone, walk away, and let the thing resolve itself?  Particularly when nothing one can say, scream, yell or rant means anything to the simple reality?

 

I mean, that's what I do with crop circles; minds bending spoons; mummies walking at night; Mothman; chupacabras; Nessie; etc.

 

I'll never figure out what is so hard about "unresolved."

 

 

I would really appreciate it if you would stop telling me what is at the heart of my opinions. Thank-you.

 

Why?  What reason are we all here for?  ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"I assure you, discomfort is at the very heart of it." 

 

DWA ^^  That. Please stop telling me, especially after I correct you, what you think my opinions are based on.  We are here to share opinions, sure, but not here to tell other people that they are motivated by fear or discomfort. Especially directly after being asked to stop doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...