Guest DWA Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 When it comes to Hawking ... remember that Einstein was not convinced of the validity of implications others saw from his theory of relativity, but others seem to have proven those since. Even the greatest of minds have some limits. Certainly within the limits of today's understanding he seems correct, but who knows what tomorrow brings? Often today's big picture turns out to be merely a special case of something bigger yet by tomorrow. I think, just like our topic of bigfoot, when it comes to UFOs the smart money says "here's my best guess and I'm going with it" while keeping an open mind for what we learn tomorrow rewriting the landscape. Its not wise to invest so much "ego" into any one theory that we can't back away when confronted with new data. I know, I know, blah blah blah ... MIB I AGREE WITH YOU. I am not ruling out intelligent life on other planets How can you? It's not as crazy as ruling out bigfoot. But it's crazy. In terms of fund wastage...we'd have known about bigfoot for decades if 1% of the SETI money had been bigfoot money. Um...any little green men yet...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) ^^ Sorry, but no. I find the claim for the existence of Bigfoot to be unsupported. And that sentiment - it merits no stronger term - is unsupported on these boards, by one thing you have said. I feel the evidence is not a mystery. I believe all of it points to one thing--man. No cigar there either. I have said this before. Hoaxes, mistakes, etc. But always the same source. Us. Not a giant ape running amok. So it follows from there that all reports are false for one of many reasons. And yes no matter the source, the consistency and volume. If there is no Bigfoot, then there are no such things as genuine Bigfoot sighting reports. That's kidding right? There are four scientific fallacies in that tiny paragraph! You talk about others being closed-minded. And you consistently put up some of the most closed-minded stuff I have read on this - or any - board. There isn't a single thing backing up anything you say. "Meldrum over you" is my smackdown, first-round-KO answer. To which you have, well, none. The stamina, however, is extraordinary. You're just wrong...but you are PROUD OF IT, brother... Edited September 12, 2013 by DWA GG 2; Rule 1 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) But do you not recognize that the assertion that all reports are false, no matter how many, no matter the quality of the witness, no matter their consistency and volume, is as extraordinary a claim as the claim that bigfoot exist? you have a point but bigfoots a little more extraordinary Edited September 12, 2013 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) "There isn't a single thing backing up anything you say" Really? How many Bigfoot hoaxes? How many actual Bigfoots? I say I think the source of the evidence is hoaxes and mistakes. You say there is nothing to back that up. But that is wrong. There are numerous cases of hoaxes and mistaken identity. So your accusation is flat out incorrect. You say the source of the evidence is Bigfoot most likely. OK. How many Bigfoots do you have? None so far.... I'd say I actually have more backing up my opinion than you do. Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 "There isn't a single thing backing up anything you say" Really? How many Bigfoot hoaxes? How many actual Bigfoots? I say I think the source of the evidence is hoaxes and mistakes. You say there is nothing to back that up. But that is wrong. There are numerous cases of hoaxes and mistaken identity. So your accusation is flat out incorrect. You say the source of the evidence is Bigfoot most likely. OK. How many Bigfoots do you have? None so far.... I'd say I actually have more backing up my opinion than you do. That's no better now than it is all the other 500 times you have used it. Raise.Your.Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Whether or not SETI is able to find anything the implications of finding proof of an alien civilization are enormous. It could change global politics, relegion, technology, etc. What would finding Bigfoot even accomplish or change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Implication's of finding proof of alien civilization is enormous ? And you have made fun of other people on here ? Where is your proof ? where is your evidence ? Edited September 12, 2013 by sheri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 12, 2013 you have a point but bigfoots a little more extraordinary I'm not sure about that. Do you know how many reports, total, are on file with the various BF research groups? BFRO just published report 41452 ... no idea if that's their max, it takes time to review as they do before publication, but in any event that's over 41,000 reports to just one database. Theirs is probably the largest by a lot but there are MANY research groups. I'm going to take a wild guess that there are 100K to 120K reports on file around the country. The odds that all are wrong is such a small number I can't take it seriously. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That's no better now than it is all the other 500 times you have used it. Raise.Your.Game. No need to raise anything. You said there is nothing to backup my assertion that all Bigfoot evidence is the result of hoaxing or mistakes. I am simply pointing out that your comment is not factual. There is quite a bit of evidence for Bigfoot hoaxes directly. And lots of studies that show that human perception is flawed which can be applied to scenarios like Bigfoot sightings. But I'm content to just stick to the hoaxes for now. Are you asserting that there is no such evidence of Bigfoot hoaxes? You must be since you say I have "nothing" to backup the claim of hoaxes. Seems odd that you would not have heard of all the hoaxes by this point.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) There are several animals in the fossil record that if you saw one tomorrow you'd swear you saw bigfoot. Why is it impossible that any such animal made it to our day? Look around and you know: it's probable that more than one has. If the condor and the koala and the saola and the wild yak and the kakapo and the duckbilled platypus and the aye-aye have made it...well, why not an animal that makes your typical bear look like the one that shouldn't have made it? Nothing at all extraordinary about it. Particularly our ignorance and denial. Garden variety, those. Right, Galileo...? Edited September 12, 2013 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) ^^ It's unlikely because it stretches credulity to think a creature of that size is running amok all over North America, including rural suburbs. You see? I'm not saying I think it could not have, I'm saying I think it did not. There is not enough evidence, in my opinion, to support the claim that it did. I am not denying the biological possibility, though I feel it to be pretty slim in the first place. And anything in the fossil record that is Bigfooty, any evidence of those things ever being in North America? No, there is not. And to my earlier point. You say I have nothing to backup my assertion of hoaxes and mistakes. Well we know there is no shortage of hoaxes. So proof of that is taken care of. But for human mistakes? How many samples have been submitted that were purported to have come from a Bigfoot? How many of those have come back as human, dog, carpet, bear, etc? Pretty much every one of them except for those that could not be identified due to contamination. So for every one of those was a person submitting them for analysis because that person thought it was from a Bigfoot. I guess they were mistaken because it came from a bear, or a dog, or anything but a Bigfoot. Those are examples of obvious mistakes in human perception. So when you say I have nothing to backup my assertion of hoaxes and human mistakes you are just flat out wrong. I have many examples of both. Again, how many Bigfoots do you have to backup your assertion? Currently, zero... Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Whether or not SETI is able to find anything the implications of finding proof of an alien civilization are enormous. It could change global politics, relegion, technology, etc. What would finding Bigfoot even accomplish or change? If unicorns are proven WE WILL ALL FLY AROUND ON HORNED HORSES THAT CAN SKEWER OUR ENEMIES. There, my grant application. Until, you know, you have thought about that post a bit. I mean, we have as much proof of unicorns. People draw pictures of them. (As I've said, with our own ravenous species as the only example we have in the universe, that alien civilization may be the last thing we find. We'll get much more good out of sasquatch, incalculably more, if evidence on hand is the only criterion. Cures for some of our most persistent diseases are only one thing that could come out of it; an explosion in our knowledge and understanding of our family tree - and thus ourselves - is only one other.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) It's like me looking for unicorns because somewhere on this enormous earth there must be one. You'd be discounting the thousands of reported Unicorn sightings as having no value. I mean, we have as much proof of unicorns. What about all the hoof prints found all over the ground? Then there's all the photos and video of Unicorns out in the wild: They don't look like the typical Unicorn yet because they're all juveniles. Edited September 12, 2013 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Show me the database, and the scientists vouching for it. Other than that, all hat and no cattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Why would we need a database and scientists to vouch for it? If science isn't interested does that mean it's holds no credibility or value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts