Let's Do Some Math...

[dmaker]

DWA, you're not answering the question being asked as usual. Why is the OP's conclusion not an assumption, yet Llawgoch's is?  You wave your shiny evidence flag around hoping to distract from the fact that you are not answering what is being asked. Instead you repeat "evidence" over and over again. Ok, fine. What evidence? Please point to the evidence that helps to answer the question of why we have zero bigfoot corpses while we have thousands of bear corpses. If the ratio of animals is accurate as demonstrated by the OP's assumptions, then it follows that we should have a corresponding number of bigfoot corpses. We do not. The question that follows is why not? 

 

Instead of answering that question you posture about evidence. You point to the number of sightings while most readers scratch our heads and try to figure out what your point is. The number of sightings does not answer the question, in fact it leaves frustratingly untouched while at the same time highlighting even more strongly the need for an explanation. If so many people are reliably reporting bigfoot, then why zero corpses? If anything, your answer servers only to highlight and obfuscate at the same time.  This is, however, your specialty when you lack a decent response. 

Edited April 5, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

See, it's the skeptics who aren't dealing here.

 

The OP point was basically this:  stop saying this can't be happening.  The reasons you are giving are utterly inadequate.  The evidence says it is happening.  Why do you simply just keep denying the evidence; clinging like Grim Death to worthless flat-earth "scientific" opinions that pretend the evidence doesn't exist; and saying it's not happening for reasons that have long been proven - by good ol' scientific deduction - inadequate and therefore, by the rules of science, dead dead dead?

 

Why DO you do that?

 

Huhn?

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand dmaker again.  Don't have to open that one, nosiree Roberto.

Edited April 5, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

^ Right, so no attempt to actually answer the question asked of you. 

 

It's ironic ( another skill you have indirectly mastered) that you throw assumption around like it's a dirty word in your responses. The OP's conclusion is completely based on an assumption. It takes root with a guess ( the total number of bigfoot) that then leads to an assumption-- we don't have bigoot corpses because the population is too small to expect to find one.  That is nothing more than an assumption. 

 

You say the evidence answers the question, but it does not. Unless you are sitting on a secret cache of bigfoot corpses, then what evidence do you have that is not conjecture or assumption to answer the question? You say evidence is the answer. So, again, please demonstrate.  You will not. We all know that, but it is polite of me to provide you another opportunity.

 

And while it may amuse you to pretend you don't read my posts, you demonstrate otherwise constantly. You have done so in this thread. You conveniently claim to not read my posts that point out where you are not living up to your claims or answering questions put to you.  When you lack a decent response, you feign ignorance. I would wager that you are not fooling anyone.

[Guest DWA]

Go back and reread at leisure.  Whipping dead horses, so not me.  Some other people, now...

[dmaker]

^^ Yup, that's what I thought. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

See, it's the skeptics who aren't dealing here.

 

The OP point was basically this:  stop saying this can't be happening.  The reasons you are giving are utterly inadequate.  The evidence says it is happening.  Why do you simply just keep denying the evidence; clinging like Grim Death to worthless flat-earth "scientific" opinions that pretend the evidence doesn't exist; and saying it's not happening for reasons that have long been proven - by good ol' scientific deduction - inadequate and therefore, by the rules of science, dead dead dead?

 

Why DO you do that?

 

Huhn?

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand dmaker again.  Don't have to open that one, nosiree Roberto.

 

 

No, that wasn't what the OP said.  It wasn't what the OP said in any shape or form.  It's what YOU keep saying,, but it is not what the OP said.  The OP strictly addressed numbers, bear populations, assumed sasquatch populations and land area.  How on earth can you read it as saying what you claim it said? 

 

This is a rhetorical question as I know you will not attempt to answer it.  But it's clear to anyone who reads the OP and then reads your supposed summary of it that the two bear no relation to one another at all.

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

 I would wager that you are not fooling anyone.

 

 

I hope he isn't,  but I am sure he thinks he is.  He must have a very low opinion of the people who post here.

[Guest DWA]

Stop foaming, guys.  Step into the light for a bit.

 

There's evidence out there.  If you, you know, care.

[Guest Llawgoch]

We're talking about the points raised in the OP.  Do you wish to discuss them?  There's no point simply repeating your claims of evidence that you spam over every thread and refuse to quantify or provide examples of.

 

I really get quite sick and tired of you trying to turn everything into an argument between 'skeptics' and 'believers' about whether Bigfoot exists, without seemingly being able to consider an individual point on its own merits.

Edited April 13, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removal of quote of post directly preceding

[Guest DWA]

Persistent, though, I will say that for you.  Definitely persistent.

 

The point of the OP was made fifty years ago.  There's more than enough ground on this continent for a large, thriving population of these critters.  All these assumptions of How Mighty We Are cut no ice in the face of almost total societal denial, the biggest weapon we wield against progress.

I'm doing this without reading the posts, I'm sure you know that.  The same thing said over and over thousands of times gets very predictable.

 

Me too?  Yeah.  (You could change that but choose not to.)  But the evidence says I'm right.

[Guest Llawgoch]

Of course, what you say there has no relevance to what I have been saying.  But as you are not reading my posts, that is hardly surprising.  

 

The evidence shows you are right on the logic in the OP, does it?  Or do you mean it shows you are right on the existence of Bigfoot?  Because, for the 1000th time, that really isn't relevant to this discussion.

Edited April 13, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC
Removal of quote of post directly preceding

[Guest DWA]

You could save yourself a lot of time, and suggestions how have been made aplenty.

[Guest Llawgoch]

What?  That doesn't even make sense.

 

I repeat, do you think the evidence shows you are right on the logic in the OP, or on the existence of Bigfoot?

[dmaker]

^^ You won't get a straight answer. Save yourself the time, stress and hassle and just ignore him. He contributes nothing of relevance to this thread anyway. All he does is cause trouble.

[Guest Llawgoch]

He only has one post, it seems, which he repeats regardless of circumstances.