roguefooter Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 (edited) ^Sorry Larry but if you can't get past the subject matter and to the actual point I was making then that's your problem. I know how you love to dwell on assumptions and gotcha moments but I'm not going to waste time on that stuff. If you want to argue that Class A reports and inaccurate statistics add up to something substantial then you can do that. Go with whatever makes you feel better. If Bigfoot is real then it'll present itself eventually- I would rather wait for that then to madly cling onto a bunch of trivial bits of evidence that's shown little to no value towards ever validating the field or bagging one. Meanwhile there's an awful lot of money to be made. Nor does a patently illogical position, no matter how many times you parrot it. Gotta love the witty comebacks around here. It's surely helping to make Bigfoot more of a reality every day. Edited April 19, 2014 by roguefooter 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^^^NO. Where's the bigfoot? You keeding me? STEAK???????????? Did the Manitoba guy kill one? You bet he did. Where's the bigfoot? WHO CARES!?!??!!?!??! It's pretty obvious. Smeja: no. MN guy? Of course! When you are clearly out looking for air time, I laugh at you unless you have proof. When you aren't; your story completely scans; and I have no reason to call you a liar...why should I? And once again, people. IT IS THE VOLUME AND CONSISTENCY. IT IS NOT ANY ONE...TWO...OR FIFTY STORIES. I'm curious. What, in your view, makes the MN guy credible while another is not? I assume you are talking about the MN guy mentioned in Bindernagels, The Discovery of the Sasquatch? There is no evidence that can be brought forward to substantiate that claim anymore than any others. So why is that claim so much more credible to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 i feel like most good, out in the open visual sightings would be very hard to misidentify. There is quite literally nothing in the woods that looks like what bigfoot is reported to look like. i think there is another catagory that we are not talking about. I call it the "it musta been" catagory. We see it all the time on Finding Bigfoot and in many reports that we read. A vocalization is heard and they don't know what it was so "it musta been" a bigfoot. Or the famous tree knock. I whack a tree with a branch and some time later i hear a thump off in the distance and "it musta been" a bigfoot returning my knock. There is simply not enough info to make that assumption, which is why i generally disreguard nonvisual encounters as interesting but of little value as evidence. another thing that i find curious from "skoftics": they use the same tactic. When one claims to have seen a bigfoot, well, "it musta been" a bear in their eyes. They have zero knowledge to make that assumption, but they do. Why do they not use that arguement with the PGF. That immediatly goes to "its a guy in a suit". Reason being is they can't in any way make an arguement that what is on that film is a bear. Yet when theres no video of an encounter, "it musta been" a bear. If i was dropped in the wilds of British Columbia, hundreds of miles from civilization and come back with a story of a Bigfoot sighting, would anyone make the arguement that it was a guy in a suit? Doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^Sorry Larry but if you can't get past the subject matter and to the actual point I was making then that's your problem. Sorry RF, but I've already clearly and concisely addressed the point you were trying to make. While at the same time making the point that you were attempting to use a false analogy (I.E.- Elvis) to somehow quantify your point. I know how you love to dwell on assumptions and gotcha moments but I'm not going to waste time on that stuff. You mean like these type of "gotcha moments": "Does the volume and consistency of Elvis sightings mean he's still alive and in hiding? In that case I better start carrying around an autograph book." If Bigfoot is real then it'll present itself eventually BF has already presented itself to me. So for that reason you and I are working from very different paradigms. Meanwhile there's an awful lot of money to be made. I make a decent living doing what I do, Rogue. But it has absolutely nothing to do with BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 ^^ How did bigfoot present itself to you Larry? Did you have a Class A visual sighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Yes. In broad daylight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) Sorry RF, but I've already clearly and concisely addressed the point you were trying to make. While at the same time making the point that you were attempting to use a false analogy (I.E.- Elvis) to somehow quantify your point. No analogy will satisfy people here, it doesn't mean that they're false. This field has very little in the way of verifiable reports so it can be compared to just about anything with "volume and consistency"- Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, aliens, etc. Many of which people get offended by because they don't want Bigfoot to be used in the same conversation with those things. The actual point gets dismissed and drowned out by the complaints- that's pretty much the way it always goes. You mean like these type of "gotcha moments": Well you got me there, Larry. See? Another gotcha moment. BF has already presented itself to me. So for that reason you and I are working from very different paradigms. Do you mean the encounter when Bigfoot mimicked the sound of a tree crashing in front of you, when he was actually a mile away and throwing his voice? "Very different paradigms" is an understatement. I make a decent living doing what I do, Rogue. But it has absolutely nothing to do with BF. Well then you're missing out on the gold rush. Moneymaker isn't just a name anymore. Edited April 20, 2014 by roguefooter 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 "Volume and consistency" don't apply in the case of Elvis (or Nessie, or UFO, or ghost, or etc.) reports. I'd think that's abundantly clear. This is my problem with bigfoot skepticism; it's naïve. "I saw Elvis" isn't the same thing as "I saw a bipedal figure. It had the following features/did the following things." Not even close. People aren't just saying "I saw bigfoot." They CAN'T; bigfoot doesn't exist, right? So they describe - from scratch - what they saw. (If you saw Elvis, you saw an impersonator. Pretty obvious, eh?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) People who report ghosts don't always say "I saw a ghost". They often say something like "I saw this little girl in a red dress sitting in the living room but then she vanished". People who report lake monsters don't always say "I saw a monster", they may say "I saw this large snake-like figure in the water." People who report UFOs and aliens don't always say "I was abducted by aliens". They often say "I remember this large metallic object outside my house and the next thing I know, I'm on an operating desk being probed by these strange beings" Edited April 20, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 OK, then...who's to say they're wrong? Not the scientific approach, is it? But then...none of those other things leave footprints, and we don't have a film of any of them, either. Not to mention a number of things for which we have proof, to which they are very similar. (Forgot. Film of Elvis impersonators - humans, pretty clearly, who only look superficially like Elvis - and footprints, whenever Elvis impersonators cross mud or snow.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Its also not the scientific approach to take sightings at face value and ignore the scientific studies done on human memory and the fallibility of eyewitness reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 The only scientific approach is to take sightings at face value. If, of course, one understands what that means. What isn't scientific is to say: well, some people are mistaken sometimes. So of course all of these are, all of the time. That's called True Belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 It also isn't scientific to say: People can't all be mistaken all the time therefore at least some of these specific eyewitness reports must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 It's not scientific to say anything absent evidence. Which eyewitness encounters are; and the way to bet - a critical aspect of scientific method - says: bet that investigation is the way to proceed. So that's what the mainstream should be doing: finding out what's causing all this to happen, rather than taking unscientific approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts