dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) " That attititude is very reminiscent of a child putting his hands over his ears and humming very loudly while his Mom lectures him for not cleaning his room." Now that is rich. Pot meet kettle. Thanks for the laugh Larry. Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Well, I don't know, LarryP seems to me to have an open mind on this. As open as mine. Neither of us is saying "this ain't real, period, it's settled. There's no doubt about it, even if I can't support anything I'm saying." We are both perusing the evidence, sussing what appears compelling from what appears trash, and forming opinions as we go, open to changing them when the info changes. It's far beyond me how anyone reading our posts could think anything else, unless an open mind reads like a closed one to them. I am not sure of the mechanism by which that happens. Can you elaborate on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) I don't consider the PGF to be evidence of anything, so why would I spend time examining it thoroughly as you put it? A fascination with the PGF is not some rite of passage for anyone interested in BF. Some of us are allowed to say "meh, looks fake" and then actually move on. No one is forced to engage on that one. I've elaborated on your open mind DWA several times in the past. I find it humorous that you think you are open minded on this one. In your "open mind" there is only one possibility--Bigfoot is real. When asked to confront the lack of any verified evidence EVER being left for science to examine, you say "shucks, we're just not looking properly". When existing evidence gets debunked and moved to the hoaxed category, this does not sway you one bit. You will pontificate about how a gambling man would bet on BF being real, yet that is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. All of the evidence to date is either hoaxed, mistaken or unverified. None of it has ever been proven to have come from a Bigfoot. Yet you imagine that a gambling man would somehow put his money on the horse that has never ever even shown up to the race? That is ludicrous. Centuries of zero verified Bigfoot evidence does not cause your marvelously "open mind" to sway one bit. But yes, oh you are so open minded. You dig your heels into your position so strong and steadfast that nothing will ever sway you. Yet you are open minded. Year after year and no BF evidence ever gets verified, yet there you stand blathering about gambling odds and NAWAC this and NAWAC that, yet nothing will change. Bigfoot, or a piece of one, will never ever show up to the party and your "open mind" will never change. Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Some of us are allowed to say "meh, looks fake" and then actually move on. No one is forced to engage on that one. Yes, you're allowed to say, "meh, looks fake". But if you're simultaneously admitting that you haven't even attempted to examine all of the evidence surrounding the PGF then you have no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) I don't consider the PGF to be evidence of anything, so why would I spend time examining it thoroughly as you put it? A fascination with the PGF is not some rite of passage for anyone interested in BF. Some of us are allowed to say "meh, looks fake" and then actually move on. No one is forced to engage on that one. I've elaborated on your open mind DWA several times in the past. I find it humorous that you think you are open minded on this one. In your "open mind" there is only one possibility--Bigfoot is real. When asked to confront the lack of any verified evidence EVER being left for science to examine, you say "shucks, we're just not looking properly". When existing evidence gets debunked and moved to the hoaxed category, this does not sway you one bit. You will pontificate about how a gambling man would bet on BF being real, yet that is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard. All of the evidence to date is either hoaxed, mistaken or unverified. None of it has ever been proven to have come from a Bigfoot. Yet you imagine that a gambling man would somehow put his money on the horse that has never ever even shown up to the race? That is ludicrous. Centuries of zero verified Bigfoot evidence does not cause your marvelously "open mind" to sway one bit. But yes, oh you are so open minded. You dig your heels into your position so strong and steadfast that nothing will ever sway you. Yet you are open minded. Year after year and no BF evidence ever gets verified, yet there you stand blathering about gambling odds and NAWAC this and NAWAC that, yet nothing will change. Bigfoot, or a piece of one, will never ever show up to the party and your "open mind" will never change. You just illustrated my last post. Cheers! But it was the elaboration I was gunning for. You talk about the problem you have not engaging. Well, you are right, if you continue to engage and have nothing to engage with. Edited May 16, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Some of us are allowed to say "meh, looks fake" and then actually move on. No one is forced to engage on that one. Yes, you're allowed to say, "meh, looks fake". But if you're simultaneously admitting that you haven't even attempted to examine all of the evidence surrounding the PGF then you have no argument. Correct, I have no argument around the PGF. I thought I was pretty clear on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) " We are both perusing the evidence, sussing what appears compelling from what appears trash, and forming opinions as we go, open to changing them when the info changes." Ok, DWA, Time to put your money where your mouth is. Can you please provide examples of when you have ever changed your opinion on something significant BF related? A couple of months ago I asked you repeatedly in a thread to just, for a moment, imagine that BF didn't exist, and then posit an idea as to what is the source of the eye witness reports. Repeatedly. You would not even entertain the notion that BF is not real and is the source of all the evidence. Yet now you claim that you are open and you change your opinion when the info changes? Do tell please... Edited May 16, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 When the info changes, I'll let you know. ;-) OK. When I first started reading about this, I was like a lot of proponents, particulary fringe ones. I tried to figure out "why so few people ever see them." Absolutely convinced we weren't talking about something paranormal here, I came up with stuff like, well, an extremely nomadic animal with extremely low pop densities. You know, the one you see in MD this year you might see in the Yukon three years from now. But then, the information changed. I started reading LOTS of reports, and started seeing as well how folks reacted to people telling their stories. And I realized: it's not that 'nobody is seeing them'. It's that 'nobody believes anyone who sees one,' and that one could camp out in a pup tent in my backyard for years, if everyone simply systematically denied there could be a bigfoot in my backyard in a pup tent. When evidence is a concatenation of 1+1+1+1...etc. = 0, well, that's a way easy and way logical explanation why we don't have proof yet. Simple. And of course you are misrepresenting your request, and my reply. I said that if BF isn't real, it is the result an amazing concatenation of random lies, hoaxes and hallucinations that, when taken together, provide the biology of an animal - everything from habitat and diet to consistent physical characteristics and logical distribution. Or: it's a family business that has been doing this since earliest European settlement. The consistency would make that not only logical, but virtually required. And I said: no logical person would bet that. And I would hope none would. But then, I've read up, which any good gambler better do before he bets. Anyone who thinks sasquatch is the source of ALL the evidence severely needs to read up. It's just that the fakes and lies are irrelevant, for reasons I have gone over many times here and will decline to repeat. Now. Time to put yours where your mouth is. How do you keep this up? Don Quixote would be proud. You on sasquatch = him on windmills. And if you are really asking me, isn't there any time when you realized you were wrong and sasquatch isn't real? well, come on, man. I have never found a single person, anywhere, who has my experience with the evidence and thinks that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Remember: your demonstrated acquaintance with the evidence has a strong tendency to discount everything you say. And "this isn't real", which I've seen you say about 20 times in the last two days, is the dictionary definition of "closed mind." Mine is as open as the sky, and as rigorous as any scientist's you will find on this question. Go ahead, put one of your mainstream boys in front of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 It all comes down to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Anyone who will simply dismiss the PGF out of hand, without considering all of the great work done on it by scientists and costume expert Munns can not be argued with or convinced of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 " OK. When I first started reading about this, I was like a lot of proponents, particulary fringe ones. I tried to figure out "why so few people ever see them." Absolutely convinced we weren't talking about something paranormal here, I came up with stuff like, well, an extremely nomadic animal with extremely low pop densities. You know, the one you see in MD this year you might see in the Yukon three years from now." But you were convinced, from the start, that BF was real? Isn't science supposed to work the other way around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 " Anyone who will simply dismiss the PGF out of hand, without considering all of the great work done on it by scientists and costume expert Munns can not be argued with or convinced of anything." Huh? Maybe had you said "...can not be argued with or convinced of anything to do with the PGF" you would have been correct. Otherwise, that is a sweeping accusation. So I'm not interested in the PGF therefore I can never hold an opinion on anything in life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 " OK. When I first started reading about this, I was like a lot of proponents, particulary fringe ones. I tried to figure out "why so few people ever see them." Absolutely convinced we weren't talking about something paranormal here, I came up with stuff like, well, an extremely nomadic animal with extremely low pop densities. You know, the one you see in MD this year you might see in the Yukon three years from now." But you were convinced, from the start, that BF was real? Isn't science supposed to work the other way around? Yep. Only one convinced here is you, way it sounds to us. The way you treat is the way you get treated, dmaker. Why not read your stuff the same way you read ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts