dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) ^^ Oh for Pity's sake! I get so tired of this old claim trotted out all the time. Is it really that hard to understand that some of us just do not believe in Bigfoot? Seriously?? You have to make us sound like frightened little children to explain away our disbelief? It is nothing more complicated than I just simply do not believe there is an unknown primate running around North America. The evidence does not point to one, it points to hoaxes and fakes and mistakes. Not a single shred of biological evidence has ever been found. But plenty of the evidence has lead to a hoax, quite often in fact. But yes, please, tell me again and again how "afraid" I am of a creature that does not exist outside of your ( collective, not you personally of course) head. Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well, now I know you'll excuse some of us if we think that "believing in" or not "believing in" something are concepts that have no relevance when copious, consistent evidence is on hand for easy review. I don't "believe in" anything. Evidence, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 ^^ That is not exactly true. You choose to believe that the evidence points to an unknown primate, despite all the times the evidence has lead to a hoax or a misidentification. I choose to believe ( or opine, or predict, or theorize, or pick whatever synonym offends your sensibilities less if you wish to nit pick on words), that the evidence will continue to show more frauds than real, and that the previous unproven evidence is fruit of the same poisoned tree. This is a logical conclusion ( in my opinion) based on the current body of evidence that has been proven on numerous times to be either fake or everything BUT a Bigfoot. This is amplified ( again imo) daily as time marches on and nothing conclusive is yet to be provided. Yet we continue to have a seemingly endless stream of hoaxes and mistakes. So it becomes my opinion that the, as of yet unproven evidence, is also either a hoax or a mistake because that is all we have, and based on history, looks like all are going to get. You, however, choose to believe the evidence points to an unknown giant primate despite the large amount of evidence that you have trashed as false and despite the fact that history has yet to provide one single piece of biological evidence that can confirm Bigfoot. So yes, that is your choice based on the evidence, and mine is my choice, based on the evidence. You believe one thing, I choose to believe the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Not exactly. When one analyzes the evidence, one comes to my conclusion. Sorry, there it is. And I am basing that on more than you are basing yours. Number of people I have talked to who disagreed with me and based their disagreement on analysis of the evidence: zero. Percentage who have done what i did, and agree with me: 100. How it works. Again, you are acting like the hoaxes mean anything. They don't. Acting like the hoaxes mean something is a red flag: "I have not reviewed the evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 So DM, you think all of the evidence that hasn't been disproven, is likely still hoaxes or misidentifications? Brown's thermal? Bart's thermal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 DM said: ^^ Oh for Pity's sake! I get so tired of this old claim trotted out all the time. Is it really that hard to understand that some of us just do not believe in Bigfoot? Seriously?? You have to make us sound like frightened little children to explain away our disbelief? It is nothing more complicated than I just simply do not believe there is an unknown primate running around North America. The evidence does not point to one, it points to hoaxes and fakes and mistakes. Not a single shred of biological evidence has ever been found. But plenty of the evidence has lead to a hoax, quite often in fact. But yes, please, tell me again and again how "afraid" I am of a creature that does not exist outside of your ( collective, not you personally of course) head. Nothing personal DM - but I could take every single sentence you typed there and turn it around to how skeptical researchers and researchers in general are treated by the 'die hard skeptic".. I don't want to get into a heavy debate about this. I just found it ironic. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 ^^^Only researchers are dealing in evidence, and bigfoot skeptics aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Yes, chelefoot I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well, analysis shows that the Brown thermal, if a person, is one of the largest-ever members of our species, hiding in dense woods strewn with all kinds of stuff one does not want to step on, after midnight, without a light, taking one of the largest steps ever taken into the unknown, to wit, a square foot of ground most of a body length away, possibly populated by a water moccasin, a copperhead or a very nasty plant or some such, but who would know without a light. That's believing in something, all right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Not exactly. When one analyzes the evidence, one comes to my conclusion. Sorry, there it is. And I am basing that on more than you are basing yours. Number of people I have talked to who disagreed with me and based their disagreement on analysis of the evidence: zero. Percentage who have done what i did, and agree with me: 100. How it works. Again, you are acting like the hoaxes mean anything. They don't. Acting like the hoaxes mean something is a red flag: "I have not reviewed the evidence." DWA, other than agree with you or coming to the same conclusion as you, how does one display that one has looked at evidence? I have looked at what is reasonably available to me. I have read several books now on the subject written by proponents. I spent 54 bucks of my own money to mail order Bindernagel's book. I read witness reports here, on the BFRO and on various other sites ( particularly the Ontario specific ones, as small as they may be), I watch every youtube video of Bigfoot that catches my eye--and that is a very high number. I read what people post here. The only thing I don't physically examine are things I do not have access to such as track castings, etc. So how am I not reviewing the evidence? "When one analyzes the evidence, one comes to my conclusion. Sorry, there it is." -DWA I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how arrogant and close minded that sounds? And I know you are going to say that is ironic because that is what I do...etc. But I am not saying that my conclusion is the only conclusion. I am just saying it is my conclusion. No one else has to arrive at the same one. You are actually saying there is one conclusion possible and one alone. That is ridiculous and arrogant. I cannot believe someone who loves to preach about open mindedness and the scientific method would actually put a statement like that in print. Wow. Edited May 31, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 If you have really read this stuff (ordered Bindernagel, OK. READ it?), then you will be able to effectively - note I said "effectively" - counter these conclusions: Almost without exception, YouTube videos are crap. Eyewitness reports are one of three things: hospitalizable mental malfunction; plain flat lie; or precisely what the witness says they saw. Mainstream scientists are not basing their conclusions about sasquatch on analysis of the evidence. They consider the topic taboo, and don't even consider changing that stance. Hoaxes have no impact on this field, other than to misinform the uninformed. Go. Show me what you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 But yes, please, tell me again and again how "afraid" I am of a creature that does not exist outside of your ( collective, not you personally of course) head. My reply was to leisureclass, not you. But I must have hit a "Tiger in the jungle" nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 "When one analyzes the evidence, one comes to my conclusion. Sorry, there it is." -DWA I'm sorry, but do you have any idea how arrogant and close minded that sounds? And I know you are going to say that is ironic because that is what I do...etc. But I am not saying that my conclusion is the only conclusion. I am just saying it is my conclusion. No one else has to arrive at the same one. You are actually saying there is one conclusion possible and one alone. That is ridiculous and arrogant. I cannot believe someone who loves to preach about open mindedness and the scientific method would actually put a statement like that in print. Wow. Only a bigfoot skeptic could say that. That is a conclusion, based on evidence. Sorry. By the way, you once again display a mishandling of evidence - namely words up here. We know whose mind is closed on this and it sure ain't mine. Anyone who reads differently didn't read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelefoot Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Yes, chelefoot I do. Cliff Barackman went out to the Brown site and did a breakdown of that video that did show some of what DWA said to be true. There is no way humanly possible that the subject of that video could be a person. Have you seen that? Do you agree with at least that much? That the subject is not a person? If you haven't seen it, no worries. I am just curious about how someone takes a very good piece of evidence and dismisses it as a hoax or mid-ID - without the slightest bit of wonder.... Has there ever been a piece of evidence - video, audio, pic...anything - that has made you pause and go , "Hmmmmm". ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Well, analysis shows that the Brown thermal, if a person, is one of the largest-ever members of our species, hiding in dense woods strewn with all kinds of stuff one does not want to step on, after midnight, without a light, taking one of the largest steps ever taken into the unknown, to wit, a square foot of ground most of a body length away, possibly populated by a water moccasin, a copperhead or a very nasty plant or some such, but who would know without a light. That's believing in something, all right. What analysis is that? I remember it being shown on Finding Bigfoot and threads here about it, but if there is a more professional analysis available somewhere on that thermal footage, I would be happy to follow a link and read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts