Guest DWA Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 ^^^Still wondering whether they understand how much their very posts telegraph. Of course right above WSA I answered the nonexistent question. See people? Here's the diff. No matter what the angle: people like WSA and I have thoroughly explored its nooks and crannies. No matter yours...you likely haven't. (Watch how the next post disagreeing with me agrees with me. I'll be available for pointers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Probably the truest indicator of the well-tuned-curiosity-which-follows-evidence-to-proof, I think, is an allergy to ever trying to make the evidence fit the outcome. Double and triple-check your data? Yes, always. Look for plausible atlernative data that fit most, or possibly even all evidence observed? Absolutely. What you should never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, <breath> never, never, never, never, never, never, EVER do is toss out something that challenges your existing understanding of what is possible if you can't give plausible alternatives that fit ALL of your evidence. If you are left with just .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of evidence you can't explain, you have what then, class? That's right. You have more work to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) It is funny to watch this two person orgy of self congratulations. I wonder if the forum will collapse under the weight of your two person mutual admiration society. "You're awesome" "No, you're more awesome, bro." "Seriously, did you see how awesome I was just there?" "That was the most awesome ever, bro" "Do you remember that time I was super awesome in the woods? That was awesome!" "The woods are scary, bro. You're so awesome that you spend so much awesome time there. Other people just don't understand how awesome you are. We should tell them a thousand times. " Edited August 22, 2014 by dmaker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 Hey, you want the last word, you can certainly have it. Anything more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 He's just jealous because you and DWA are awesome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 (edited) Hey, you want the last word, you can certainly have it. Anything more? Last word? Naw. Just a little tired of you and DWA telling people constantly how to think and how "out of tune" our curiosities are, or one of the dozens of other deficiencies you two perceive in everyone else. We don't think right, we don't read right, we don't appreciate nature properly when we're out there, etc, etc. We get it. You two are awesome and the rest of us are ignorant rubes until we dial in our bigfoot mojo like you two have. Maybe one day all of your subjective awesomeness might allow you to produce a single scrap of objective evidence for all this stuff you proclaim. Edited August 22, 2014 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I think you two are AWESOME too!!!! It's so nice that the doubtful are starting to notice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted August 22, 2014 Moderator Share Posted August 22, 2014 Dmaker You truly are trying to get a handle on this are you not,but can not make sence of it all. There is no way that I will ever prove what I have expierance to you unless you were there. But you know what I am ok with that and i am ok if i have been put on ignore by a lo of others. So what that i can not prove to you what i saw or that no one else can either. That is just the way it is and like the topic of the tread says it will make no difference one way or the other. May be this has been done by some on seen authority that we have no understanding. But still it does seem to differ that you do seem to be here for some reason ,that you do have some belief that this creature does exist. Other wise you would have stopped a long time ago and never become a member and payed your $20 or so seeking answers. See that where i am different, i have already found those answers to satisfy what i have been looking for. So in a way there is no need for me to pay the $20 unless i am willing to look at being insulted for telling the truth.I am here to know that I am not alone and to let others know the same. There would be nothing more special to me then to bring in a body and to prove to all how right I am. But that would just be a selfish act and would be one I am not willing to commit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 I will take a backseat to no one on these boards on wildlife seen. Ever been surrounded by bears? I mean literally surrounded, females and cubs in every direction of the compass? That's only one. But one has to think about it the way people like WSA and I think about it to make the translations. And I'd say this to your last sentence: go out in the woods NOT looking for sasquatch and you WON'T see one. Again, unless you're just lucky, which is what most wildlife sightings are, luck. Lots of wildlife photographers say they can't exist because those photographers haven't personally seen one. (That they'll admit.) That's not knowing how to think about being in the wild. LOL since most sightings are reported by people who are not looking for bigfoot in the first place. I'm not sure people understand how to deal with this 'sasquatch sightings in wilderness' thing. Know how many remote-wilderness sightings there will be? Almost zero. Humans back there are well out of their element. They are totally on the animals' terms. I've seen the fewest critters in the deepest most remote excursions. It's like there's a hot-pink chopper, electric-blue stripes, above me, following me around, guy with a megaphone, HEY DWA RIGHT HERE!!!! When animals come to the fringes of that deep habitat they start to lose their advantage. The lure of easy food drops their defenses. They're partially blinded by lights, partially deafened by noise. (Or they simply care less because their eyes are on the prize, that dumpster, that horse pen, that rabbit hutch, that chicken coop). This, simple logic has it, is where 90% of the sightings will be. OK, maybe 70%, the rest being divided between the occasional deep-woodsman and the motorist on a remote road, the sides of which are deep quiet unpopulated habitat. (90% of that remaining 30% are the motorists, count on it.) Most ufos are spotted wherever humans are just like bigfoot apparently. Wapiti and brown bears are reported mostly in forests not urban or suburban habitats. This despite the fact that humans are found mostly in urban and suburban habitats. Humans see plenty of wildlife in the woods. We are not especially out of our depth in the woods. Bigfoot sightings would be similar to these in reportage I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) dmaker: Why is it that never, never on this site have you given anyone with an objective slant on this question any reason to think anything you say about it has any merit? Other than "no proof...yet," which is the only obvious fact we all accept? Why is it that when such as WSA and I point out, using facts, evidence, and experience, that such as you simply are not approaching this correctly even close to at all, you are always reduced to nothing more than "you all think you are so hot?" What is with that? You know that it kind of highlights where things are, right? Um...WHAT curiosity, pray tell? Hot? Can we help it if we are? It just comes from a way of looking at the world, which I for one would take over the one you are exhibiting, every time. "Fun" is what wins the Nobels. It's what's gonna prove you wrong...although won't it be interesting to mic you up THAT fine day. I mean, not that I care, knowing you're wrong already. Whether you are, or not; and it's telling that you won't understand what I just said. (I'll throw you a bone: it's not whether you're right. IT'S WHY.) Edited August 23, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 DWA, you are , in my opinion. the least objective person on this forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) Why is it that when such as WSA and I point out, using facts, evidence, and experience...... Please point some of that evidence out to us. Not hyperbole, boast, nor self-congratulation. Facts and evidence, please. Edited August 23, 2014 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 (edited) antfoot: you have no idea how out of your element you are in the woods. You're talking about the ones you saw. Multiple times that you never did because they were gone the moment they saw heard or smelled YOU. (Other than the ones who just watched you the whole time you were out there that you never saw.) You've probably been tracked for significant distances by numerous curious predators you never had an idea were there. Bank on it. Yes, most sightings are by people who weren't looking for bigfoot in the first place. Why do you think we don't have any evidence but those people's word coming back from ANY of those sightings? Notice I said "unless you're just lucky"? And what will you have? The world thinking you saw a unicorn. Did you miss my point on purpose? "Most UFOs are spotted wherever humans are just like bigfoot apparently?" Oh. Kay. Um...how does something get spotted when there is no human there? Further example of the naivete displayed by people discounting the anecdotal evidence. What separates bigfoot from UFO is: people see this animal precisely where a scientist would expect them to. I mean come on. Have we or have we not gone over this enough times? Nod. We have. dmaker: you are wrong about the least objective person on this forum. That would be the person who can't find a scrap of evidence to back up his thesis. I'm looking at you, dmaker...oh, then there's whether I would strictly care what someone who doesn't bother to inform himself about a topic before going off for thousands of posts would think of objectivity, facts, or me. I use your posts as educational tackling dummies for the newbies and the established scientists who may have gotten off the rails and need some counsel. I'm not arguing with you. One doesn't argue with a person one knows is wrong. One just points out the puddle of goo in the road and guides folk around it. And Inc1...no, I just can't open those anymore. Edited August 23, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 But might it be too impactful if it were to upset the whole dogma that surrounds the idea all other hominins are extinct? There are three extant species of hominins: man, chimp, and bonobo: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Share Posted August 23, 2014 "Most UFOs are spotted wherever humans are just like bigfoot apparently?" Oh. Kay. Um...how does something get spotted when there is no human there? Further example of the naivete displayed by people discounting the anecdotal evidence. What separates bigfoot from UFO is: people see this animal precisely where a scientist would expect them to. I mean come on. Have we or have we not gone over this enough times? Nod. We have. UFO reports come from every place humans exist. Wapiti and brown bear reports only come from where wapiti and brown bears are likely to exist. Bigfoot reports are more like ufo reports in reportage than they are like reports of other large mammals. I would not expect a large man of the woods in a suburb. The biogeography of bigfoot does not relate to the "animal" like it does with other large animals in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts