Guest Crowlogic Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 If you want to see hoaxes just keep searching the net. The real researchers in this field are not concerned about convincing the skeptics of anything, and as I must admit I am a bit of a arm chair enthusiast. Or should I say that I am more of a computer chair enthusiast, meaning I have spent far more time hear blogging than hours directly researching the subject, that is the truth. I am leaning on the work of a lot of other dedicated people, people who are not entertained by forums or facebook. What deludes me is that I actually feel I have learned from my online activity and studying data. Yes I have had an encounter with vocalizations, and subsequent activities on my property, but how little time has actually been spent tracking the creatures down. Sometimes I think I want it to remain a mystery, and that is why I have not pursued the task further, then I realize that I have nearly devoted most of my free time to pondering the subject, so what is the difference. I like many of you am neurotic in the matter, and of course I did not find bigfoot, they found me, or crossed my path for an instance. However the "real researchers" either do not have solid evidence to court mainstream science, are not vitally concerned with sharing a discovery of the ages, and are by not sharing their extraordinary proof willing to let their field of research be polluted by hoaxers and con artists. I suspect that there is a genuine lack of extraordinary evidence keeping the real researchers under the radar. In any event it is going to be a very long wait for that extraordinary proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Wrong. The proponents' case is out there for anyone who wants to do their job as a scientist and review it. Unless....right. The word "scientist" is misused, in the vast majority of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Extraordinary evidence???? I would think that most evidence is just rather mundane evidence. In all fields of science, most evidence is a stuff like a temperature reading, a nest count, a capacitance value, none of this makes me want to go WOW!!!!! This BS about extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is the Carl Sagen Legacy. 'Nuff said about that! This thread has already discussed the Black Hole theory. Science is replete with theories passed off as facts: blackholesglobalwarmingevolutiongeologictimelines come to mind. Please at least try to maintain a bit of consistency in your quest for Scientific Righteousness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 22, 2015 Author Share Posted April 22, 2015 The evidence is simply vocalizations, footprints and eyewitness accounts, but that is sufficient proof of it's existence, one need not look further. It is ludicrous to say that all the 1000s of eyewitnesses are mistaken or simply imagining things, nor is it logical for tracks of the nature that have been found in the remotest of places to have been hoaxed, nor is there a known animal that makes the vocalizations that have been recorded countless times by researchers. It would not be historically traceable if the phenomenon started with Jerry Crew, nor would have been spread to many parts of the globe. The facts remain, and some are simply not willing to come to terms with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ^^^If one cannot piece together the overwhelming case made by the vocalizations, footprints and eyewitness accounts...one really might want to ask oneself what one is doing coming here over and over and over again to block one's own access to information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Wrong. The proponents' case is out there for anyone who wants to do their job as a scientist and review it. Unless....right. The word "scientist" is misused, in the vast majority of cases. Where is the proponents case? I keep asking this question and does it take a secret handshake to view the evidence. I can watch the best documentaries staring Jeff Meldrum and the evidence is perhaps better arranged but it is just casts the PGF and story telling. Even when the blobsquatches are taken out of the equation there isn't much to go on. On the "good" shows they discuss DNA and hair but I've yet to see a DNA analysis chart overlayed with a human or other higher primate. Unknown primate is the best you get. I find it odd that science establishments like NASA make discoveries readily available. They don't tell the public to go out and make your own Mars Rover and see what we know about Mars. This is where bigfoot culture seems to have a certain paranoia about playing the game close to the vest. What are they holding or perhaps what are they not holding? I don't expect science to pick up the bigfoot baton and run with it and why should it? Scientists virtually always find what they are looking for one way or another. Consider the Bili Ape. The locals knew of it and finally when science arrived they worked in concert with the locals and the Bili Ape was proven. The Native Americans have a tradition of sasquatch but not a single FNP has ever been able to lead anyone to sasquatch. So the Bili Ape exists and there is excellent video documentation of it. Not Biliblobs mind you but the kind of video that screams reality. I wonder why the locals didn't say to the scientists like "We know it's there and that's good enough for us. So go out there and prove it for yourself." The evidence is simply vocalizations, footprints and eyewitness accounts, but that is sufficient proof of it's existence, one need not look further. It is ludicrous to say that all the 1000s of eyewitnesses are mistaken or simply imagining things, nor is it logical for tracks of the nature that have been found in the remotest of places to have been hoaxed, nor is there a known animal that makes the vocalizations that have been recorded countless times by researchers. It would not be historically traceable if the phenomenon started with Jerry Crew, nor would have been spread to many parts of the globe. The facts remain, and some are simply not willing to come to terms with them. Wrong. I'm not incapable of coming to terms with bigfoot. I have simply abandoned the pretense that there is sufficient reason to believe in it's existence. But if it proved to be an alternate proto human or even a post modern human I would enjoy the ramification of either. What exactly is there to come to terms with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Where is the proponents case? I keep asking this question and does it take a secret handshake to view the evidence. NO. How many times have I said this? I have found it pretty much all myself, no handshakes no secret clearances no nothing but patience and not much of that, and...wait for it...*actual interest in the subject matter.* Which I am seeing from surprisingly few here, all things considered. When one knows his animals, and one applies one's knowledge of the outdoors and what goes on there, one *knows* what the evidence represents. When one does not ....well, then nothing happens and one is waiting on information that's been there for one to see all the time. As I said: too many here are letting their own minds wall them off from the evidence. Denial lets one deny that denial is taking place. Yup, seeing that here. Oh, big time seeing that. Every single where I look on this topic...but the scientific proponents. Follow the evidence. Plain sight. Edited April 22, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 One thing I find attractive about studying this problem is it requires you to be conversant in so many other related disciplines, that is, if you are approaching it seriously and correctly. I laugh at myself often because I really think I'm using the screen of BF studies to justify an inordinate amount of time reading on the topics of anthropology, social sciences, tracking and wildlife observation, genetics, meteorology, hunting, history of scientific discoveries, forestry, ecology, cellular biology, photography, statistics....I mean, the list is immense, and I'm sure I've overlooked some things too. So if you have my predilections, and I'm here because I'm convinced many here do share them, what is not to like about this topic? And don't get me wrong either. I'm not just investing this time because I like to spin my wheels on esoteric and controversial subject matters. I do it because the more you learn about it, the more it all hangs together. Where else can your average would-be polymath like me score like this? Nowhere else I know of. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 ^^^^Couldn't be more this, from my standpoint, and by contrast, the 'skepticism' I see on this topic is some of the dull-dull-dullest single-dimensionality I have encountered. Contrary to what many seem to think: we latched onto science as a species 'coz it's so dam fun. Any efforts to make it less...well, many such could not be *less* scientific. Absolutely the more time one spends and the more one questions what one knows...the more certain one becomes that we are major missing something that isn't trying to hide itself that extremely well. And this too: the more one sees all the *other* places we are doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 The evidence is there for all to see. The proof is whether you choose to except it; which I can see is very personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 22, 2015 Admin Share Posted April 22, 2015 ^^^^^^^ Evidence is subjective. Proof? Is not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Plenty of people have been sent to their doom on subjective "proof" derived from subjective "evidence", GIGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Depends on the evidence. But, proof is built on good supporting evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted April 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted April 22, 2015 Hey Crow I found just the place to take you yesterday. Not going back alone, figure taking a skeptic along will protect me from reality. You can go explain to the ape thing back in the trees that it cannot possibly exist. All it takes is an airline ticket and some time. PS bring some extra changes of underwear. You might need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Every now and then, the desire to fabricate stories for attention becomes too strong in some of our pretend researchers. Unfortunately, it's what makes up a great deal of online Bigfooting. Any genuine research will seem dull in comparison... Edited April 22, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts