Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Larry is implying that the government conspiracy of hiding bigfoot is "out in the open." I'm not implying it, I'm clearly stating the obvious fact that it's out in the open. If there was no suppression then there wouldn't be so many US Park Service personnel who are extremely reluctant to discuss their experiences publicly. It's no different than the reason why commercial airline pilots are instructed by the FAA manual to report sightings of UAP's to "local law enforcement" instead of the FAA. Which of course is totally ridiculous and is nothing more than barely disguised code for keep your mouth shut. That is why NARCAP was created. So that pilots can report UAP sightings anonymously without fear of reprisal. Edited August 1, 2014 by LarryP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 ^So the massive secret conspiracy is so out in the open that you can rant about it on an internet forum? They're onto you man... Oh, the irony. So deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) If there was no suppression then there wouldn't be so many US Park Service personnel who are extremely reluctant to discuss their experiences publicly. Perhaps National Park personnel don't discuss these things because that don't think people will believe them. I know its cooler and more rebellious to assume theirs a cover-up based on superficial "facts", but other things have to be taken in account. Edited July 31, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Perhaps National Park personnel don't discuss these things because that don't think people will believe them. Undoubtedly that's a factor. But that's not the only reason. All you have to do is run a search on the BFF and you'll come up with all kinds of examples of Park Rangers who have clearly said that they are strongly discouraged not to report anything to do with BF at all. Again, a perfect analogy would be commercial airline pilots who are told in no uncertain terms by the airlines that employ them that they should not make official reports of UAP's they've encountered in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) ^^^Still doesn't mean much. The government discouraging people to from reporting does not mean that they "know" it. It could mean the opposite, that they don't believe it and don't want their employees to give the impression that they do. Same for UFOs and pilots. Again, all you have is conjecture and suspicion. Edited July 31, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Again, all you have is conjecture and suspicion. Actually you're the one engaging in nothing but conjecture, Jerry. And I'm the one who is dealing with facts, while you continuously try to avoid them. That's because you always refuse to apply true critical thinking to anything that challenges the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) If by "critical thinking" you mean, "jump to conclusions and don't take anything else into account", then no. Edited August 1, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Observation and recognition of facts and then applying them to all of the possible aspects of a phoenomena before reaching any conclusions is true critical thinking. Whereas constant denial of any and all factual evidence that contravenes the established status quo, is cognitive dissonance, not critical thinking. Then there's the experience factor to consider. Experiential knowledge supersedes everything else. Conversely, anyone who tries to describe the scenery of a place they've never been to, is operating from a false paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guillaume Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Experiential knowledge supersedes everything else. My experience tells me that people create their own narratives for a variety of reasons, not that there's anything wrong with that. Humans have uttered and elaborated tall tales from the earliest times. Our greatest stories--the ones that move us and even define us--are arguably mostly if not entirely fiction... not that there's anything wrong with that, either. So whose experience supercedes whose here? Hard evidence is what it is, and there's none for bigfoot. Making excuses and claiming special, secret knowledge doesn't change a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Saying nothing about all the "secrets" of habituators et al. But by any definition science accepts for "evidence" and "compelling," there is much compelling evidence for sasquatch. Scientists have followed far less to proof; and everything with this pattern of evidence is proven, except this. Which won't be proven when no one is looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) "Experiential knowledge supersedes everything else." No hard evidence does. So show an official document and proves the government acknowledges bigfoot's existence and are try to suppress it for whatever reason. You clearly have a preconceived notion and interpret "facts" in light of it without considering other explanations. Talking about "challenging/defending the status quo" is nothing more than an emotional appeal to rebellion. Edited August 1, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Well I'm going with the thousands with experiential knowledge - and the scientists clearly using their science to evaluate those experiences - over those who show me they can't think about this sort of thing properly. This is where most "scientists" show themselves to be mere technicians, out of their depth when the discussion shifts from their experience base. When scientists say the same things I'd expect the garbageman to say, they're showing me they just aren't devoting the intellectual wattage to this. I can't say anything about whether the government knows or not (although I suspect that various government organizations do). It's irrelevant. Edited August 1, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Well, we can always count on you to bring up the same subject and same talking points over and over regardless of the topic. Edited August 1, 2014 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) ^^^Said the pot to the kettle, perhaps. The talking point you keep glossing over is that evidence backs what *I* am saying. 'no proof no proof' for, let's see...695 posts...is...um, how would you classify that...? Edited August 1, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Again, stick to the topic. What do you have to say about bigfoot's relation to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts