sheri Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 LOL, dmaker, maybe I need reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 I've said this before, but I will say it again. The problem with the alleged evidence for Bigfoot isn't that it gets denied simply because of the subject matter. It gets denied because the current evidence for Bigfoot is not very strong. It needs to get better. Not standards to get lower. You mention tracks and photos and samples. That I would deny them all. That is simply not true. I have little faith in tracks due to the ease with which they are hoaxed and the fact that they even have a history of hoaxing the phd experts. Those are a dubious source evidence, in my opinion, for those reasons. Samples? I am not the one denying those. The labs that run the tests are the ones returning the results as everything but a Bigfoot. How can you lay that claim at my feet? That's absurd. Photos and video? For pity sake, get some decent ones and I'll happily look at them. And I can tell you this, if they are clear enough and unambiguous then I would begin to reconsider happily. I mean that honestly. I wold love for someone to get some nice, clear high-def footage of an alleged Bigfoot. That would be awesome. No more watching the PGF and trying to convince myself that it's real. The problem is not me, the problem is the evidence. Dismissing all evidence because some evidence is flawed still doesn't make sense. It's like twerking. Guaranteed to get you attention, but not respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 You need reading comprehesion. I never said anything about our celestial bodies. I was talking about SETI and listening for alien life. No evidence , yet 11 million was used each year for it.LOL The case could be made that SETI is the flightiest, silliest thing scientists have ever done. To say nothing of naive in the extreme. We have all these planets that could have life on them. Probably not. But could. So. We're shooting rockets into the air and hoping somebody that probably doesn't exist picks them up? We have these huge radioarrays waiting for messages from things that probably don't exist? We haven't learned a thing about the potential outcomes of this from what the only advanced intelligence of which we are aware is doing to - for all it knows - the only beings with which it shares the universe? ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!?!?!?!? That anyone scoffing at bigfoot could hold a brief for either UFO or SETI - btw, no evidence, none, that UFO have anything to do with any form of life - is, well, the most humorous thing I have seen on the BFF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 LOL, dmaker, maybe I need reading comprehension. No worries. Happens to everyone at some point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) [Edited because of promises I made - only to myself, now - about trying to be nice here, regardless] 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) Dismissing all evidence because some evidence is flawed still doesn't make sense. It's like twerking. Guaranteed to get you attention, but not respect. I understand what you are saying. But as time goes by and not a single Sasquatch arrives, then the tainted evidence source starts to emerge as the sole evidence source. It starts to look like all the evidence is either wrong ( DNA samples, mistaken identity, etc) or hoaxed. Not just that there a few bad apples, but the rest are probably good. If the rest were good, I firmly believe Sasquatch would have been confirmed by now. We have plenty of hoaxed or mistaken evidence, but we have not one single piece of objective evidence that can be used to confirm Sasquatch. That is where I'm coming from. It's the hoaxes and the mistakes coupled with the complete evidence of absence that really clinches it for me. In a nutshell at least. That is just my objective opinion. Not meant to incite emotional responses or any such silly nonsense. It's just how I see things after examination. Edited September 12, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 No offense Dmaker, but saying your not an authority of primate locomotion does not negate your ability to accept an expert opinion, Meldrum's opinion of the prints, as a body of evidence, is that they evidence a true biological creature. Now had he not been fully persuaded of that fact, he would not be risking his career attempting to establish the reality of this creature. The existence of a North American ape would only make sense, given their range over the continents, and the North American land bridge that populated our continents. It would only make sense that this creature would find it's way over here. Unless you completely deny that theory of migration of humans and animals. Sasquatch is really not all that fantastic of a notion, it is rather rational really. To say that all these pseudo hominids existed only in our distant past seems to contradict how species of the same type have coexisted along side of each other "millions of years" if you buy into evolution, which surprisingly I do not. Or maybe we still live along side one of these hominids, and will discover that we always have... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 The fossil evidence suggests such a creature, and possibly Bigfoot is nothing more than one of these relic hominids we have dug up. I think that we will be able to prove such a creature exists fairly shortly, then it will be a mute case. I think the day will come when Bigfoot is no longer legend, but fact. Meldrum and others will be seen as pioneers of their day and we will be chasing down other cryps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 No offense Dmaker, but saying your not an authority of primate locomotion does not negate your ability to accept an expert opinion, Meldrum's opinion of the prints, as a body of evidence, is that they evidence a true biological creature. Now had he not been fully persuaded of that fact, he would not be risking his career attempting to establish the reality of this creature. The existence of a North American ape would only make sense, given their range over the continents, and the North American land bridge that populated our continents. It would only make sense that this creature would find it's way over here. Unless you completely deny that theory of migration of humans and animals. Sasquatch is really not all that fantastic of a notion, it is rather rational really. To say that all these pseudo hominids existed only in our distant past seems to contradict how species of the same type have coexisted along side of each other "millions of years" if you buy into evolution, which surprisingly I do not. Or maybe we still live along side one of these hominids, and will discover that we always have... Its not a contradiction that other hominids existed in the past but not today. The other hominids went extinct from either environmental pressure or in ability to compete other species that fill the same niche. Species of the same type can coexist but rarely so if they fill the same ecological niche. Which is what is thought is what happened to both erectus and neanderthal. Same ecological niche as modern humans but couldn't compete. Just curious why you reject evolution. Where did the homonids and sasquatch come from then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 ^^^^^You should take this to PM instead of baiting someone. You know full well that to answer that question will cross forum boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 12, 2013 Author Share Posted September 12, 2013 When I say I reject what is described as evolution, I mean the evolution of one specie into another, namely I believe that species can adapt, but not evolve into another specie. Well that is my contention, so other hominids could have existed along side of man, but I do not believe that we are their derivative. Larger variety of all types of animals seems to have existed in the past, and extinction has dwindled us down to what we have today. It is interesting that what we have left is generally the best adapted versions of a specie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 That is where I'm coming from. It's the hoaxes and the mistakes coupled with the complete evidence of absence that really clinches it for me. In a nutshell at least. That is just my objective opinion. Not meant to incite emotional responses or any such silly nonsense. It's just how I see things after examination. "Complete evidence of absence"? That's a massive and unsupportable stretch unless heavily qualified with something like "Complete evidence of absence in my bedroom, because I refuse to look out the window for fear of seeing something I can't deal with". And one can't claim to be objective if one is subjectively dismissing all reports from all sources. It's like saying one is dating the most beautiful person in the world.... if one ignores their bad teeth, excess weight, and thinning hair. Mainstream science has a very handy means of dealing with things it does not want to acknowledge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) The case could be made that SETI is the flightiest, silliest thing scientists have ever done. To say nothing of naive in the extreme. We have all these planets that could have life on them. Probably not. But could. So. We're shooting rockets into the air and hoping somebody that probably doesn't exist picks them up? We have these huge radioarrays waiting for messages from things that probably don't exist? We haven't learned a thing about the potential outcomes of this from what the only advanced intelligence of which we are aware is doing to - for all it knows - the only beings with which it shares the universe? ELEVEN MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!?!?!?!? That anyone scoffing at bigfoot could hold a brief for either UFO or SETI - btw, no evidence, none, that UFO have anything to do with any form of life - is, well, the most humorous thing I have seen on the BFF. SETI isn't claiming there's strong evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence, but that given the size of the universe there might be some somewhere and its worth the searching. Now if SETI claimed that there's an intelligent civilization living on the moon or Mars and wanted to spend money on that, then they wouldn't get that amount of money. By the way, SETI is mostly funded by private donors. Its seems they succeeded where Bigfoot Organizations failed. Edited September 12, 2013 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 SETI was listening for sign's of extraterrestial life. Even though there was no evidence of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Whatever. Very little (if any) of your tax money goes to SETI so why are you bothered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts