Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 There are people who put a tremendous amount of effort into this just for the fun of it... Oh look a mid-tarsal break... This doesn't represent a tremendous amount of effort. I'm not even a scientist. And the mid-tarsal break is in the wrong place. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Not just Bigfoot but all kinds of critters http://maskulllasserre.com/section/296524_Outliers.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 "I'd consider this compelling. Any other known North American mammal make these? Show me your proof." -DWA Show me your proof that Bigfoot made them. That BF did not make them is the more extraordinary conclusion here. If you want people to think BF made them, then prove it already and stop hiding behind the " you can't prove Bigfoot didn't make them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Sorry. Your thesis; your proof; no hiding going on. If you don't think this is what it looks like, then either you have to prove what it is, or you just wait until it's proven what it is. See? Life is actually pretty simple when broken down into easily-digestible basics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) ^^ But in the mean time you will go with Sasquatch? It's not my contention that Sasquatch made them, it's yours. Or do you not think this is a genuine trackway? If you do, then please prove that BF made them. Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) I'm content that the proof will come when it comes. See, those of us who are paying attention here don't feel like we are on the personal schedule of those who aren't. If that hurts your feelings, not sure what I need to say about that. But if you think a hoppy bunny or a Ph.D primatologist/anthropologist made them, well you need to prove that. And if you don't think you do...I'm content that the proof will come when it comes. (That really does seem to upset you, doesn't it.) Edited June 23, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (edited) Hello All, The biggest defense in soft data, especially in the UFO community when it comes to speculation or hypothesis WRT an ET idea promoted as truth, is "prove me wrong". I would like to think that the Sasquatch community is beyond that retort. It wastes time, brain power, and dilutes a focused dialogue. The result is that threads disappear down the page and out of sight, most times forever. I've seen UFO topics and discussion that has been superb in depth and reasoning only to be torpedoed by moderator attitude or because it's not good for business to have a member poke their head up beyond Forum rhetoric and present something honestly thought provoking that could stimulate progress. I'm not criticizing counter argument at all here as it is a healthy thing to have in order to help streamline fact from fiction. The advantages being creating an atmosphere for brainstorming a solution to a cyclical dialogue that keeps turning back on itself. I've been presenting ideas as many of you have to try to zero in on some methods of thinking that could be beneficial. Not just presenting "evidence" as personally I have none. All I have to offer is perhaps new approaches to what is. Sometimes the subject in question might be better viewed when peripheral processes of elimination are employed like what Cervelo presented, which was excellent. But even that link will not cover the decades of observation and accounts. Taken as a whole, the body of evidence still makes for a circumstantial case. We probably can at least all agree on that. The real issue is, is it a strong enough circumstantial case HISTORICALLY to say that the existence of our Hairy Friend is more convincing than not. If that's the case then the focus here should generally be in SOLVING the mystery rather than presenting more evidence. There's plenty of that in spades. Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 I'm content that the proof will come when it comes. See, those of us who are paying attention here don't feel like we are on the personal schedule of those who aren't. If that hurts your feelings, not sure what I need to say about that. But if you think a hoppy bunny or a Ph.D primatologist/anthropologist made them, well you need to prove that. And if you don't think you do...I'm content that the proof will come when it comes. (That really does seem to upset you, doesn't it.) What do YOU think made them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 (Apologies to those who are already typing my answer for me.) I. Don't. Know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 No need to get testy. Was. Just. Asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 Another question for skeptics, since you find no evidence compelling? What led you to that conclusion? Did you examine the evidence first hand? Did you read about someone who did examine it? Or do you simply reject all evidence based on faith alone that the creature doesn't exist? How did you draw your conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 Hello Norseman, The $64,000 question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 No need to get testy. Was. Just. Asking. Well a little testiness is gonna happen with me when my position - which can be summed up in those three words I typed - gets constantly misrepresented. It's just that being a pretty thorough skeptic, I don't accept any position that comes my way without evidence. Why I am where I am on sasquatch is that there is - couldn't be more contrary to the 'skeptical' take - TONS of evidence that comes with this; that remains untested; and that points as much as anything else to the conclusion that people won't see what they don't want to. Until I see the evidence properly reviewed, and proof given for what it all represents, I am very skeptical of any take that simply makes assumptions and presents them as facts. ("No proof yet" is a fact. It's just - as I have pointed out many times - irrelevant.) If that trackway is a hoax it may be the most sophisticated bigfoot hoax ever. Which points to how laughable the others are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 And of course you can buy all the classics... http://taylormadefossils.com/panels.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 It's a symbiotic relationship. Tracks are not proof..........what's making the tracks is proof. If all tracks are a hoax? Then there is no reason to follow any of the tracks. We all might as well stay home and play Xbox. But if some of the tracks are compelling, then these are the tracks we should be following..........to find PROOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts