norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Tj1hG98xE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 How naive can we be here? Apparently there's no limit to our naivety! Or our arrogance either. We think we know "such & such doesn't exist" because we've never seen it, & if it "did" exist it couldn't do "such & such". Because WE'RE the "only ones" that can do that. Or because "nobody" ever found evidence that BF can do it. Do we have the naivety & arrogance to think we've seen & been informed about all the evidence that everybody ever found? I asked: How do you know that they can't/don't make fire? And why would they need to waste time chipping out stone tools, when they can pick up almost any kind of tool that they might need from campers, our back yards, or farm or ranch shops? And you answered that you find signs that humans had been around remains of old campfires & you never found a lost axe in the woods. What does that prove except that presumed humans are in the woods, allegedly leaving tracks, beer bottles, & various other trash? It doesn't prove that BF can't pick up an axe or build a fire. You have nothing but your own lack of evidence to the contrary to base your assumption on. Now we know a bear can ride a bike. What does that have to do with a BF building a fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Logical progression: a) Sasquatch doesn't exist therefore we have proof of nothing. But if we extrapolate the known myths of the beast fire starting is not a trait. B ) animals with training can be taught to do numerous tricks that does not mean whoever that it translate to wild members of their kind. C) bicycles and matches are very recent development so why now? D) if a Sasquatch specimen was brought in? We could study it's stomach content.... If it's cooked? I will publicly apologize to you. Edited April 23, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 No you wouldn't. You'd say that humans cook food too, & it probably found some cooked food that a human threw out or gave it or it had been dumpster diving. You would NOT say it was because BF cooks his food. And for the record, I don't think they cook their food. That's not the only reason to have a fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Pretty easy to tell the difference between angus burger and toad soup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Pretty easy for a BF to catch an angus if he wants one, too. I've heard them "allegedly" doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 You hear lots of things...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 There's a lot to hear, & see too, if you open your ears & eyes & stop being oblivious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Things like bigfoot and the perennial lack of proof require the creation of conspiracies in order to keep the proofless ball in motion. Conspiracy pandering also earns income for some who put them forth. That "perennial lack of proof" is in itself a perennial distortion of fact, and always used by those who have never seen one. (If anyone has clearly seen one or more BF and can't consider the sighting as personal proof of their existence, that would be very odd an unusual.) Would you consider it proof of their existence if you were fortunate enough to see one at close enough range and lighting conditions that would discount it being any other animal, including a human in a costume? Would that be using logic? Could you give some examples of "conspiracy panders" who derive income from such activities? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) In other words you have nothing As long as that is clear I won't waste anymore of my time on questioning you If for some reason I have given you the erroneous impression that your opinions about what I "have" or what I have learned about BF is of some concern or interest to me, I certainly must apologize; nothing could be further from the truth. Please don't waste your valuable time. Edited April 23, 2015 by Branco 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Norse, you are wasting your time here dude. Bottom line is that whoever brings in robust, scientifically valid proof of sasquatch (a body or part thereof) will not be lynched but rather will be supported by scientific consensus. Those who claim intimate knowledge or definitive proof yet yield or proffer nothing will, understandably, receive due criticism for that navel gazing stance. The collection of any animal is not something to be gleeful of but, as you and any scientifically minded person will say, it is essential for conservation. Maintain your position because it is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Sassfooty: Are you OK? Though you might have hurt yourself during a hard fit of laughing after that "How naive can we be here?" thingy. My sides are sure sore from it.:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 It was pretty bad there for a minute, Branco, & my mointor had to be cleaned, but everything is back to normal now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 That's awesome!!!! Now why don't you two run off to frolic with your forest friends? I hear Mr Bukwas wants to return a shovel........ Maybe later you can all go searching for the Leprachauns pot of gold!!! Fun! Fun! Norse, you are wasting your time here dude. Bottom line is that whoever brings in robust, scientifically valid proof of sasquatch (a body or part thereof) will not be lynched but rather will be supported by scientific consensus. Those who claim intimate knowledge or definitive proof yet yield or proffer nothing will, understandably, receive due criticism for that navel gazing stance. The collection of any animal is not something to be gleeful of but, as you and any scientifically minded person will say, it is essential for conservation. Maintain your position because it is right. Thanks bud! The more the snake oil salesman talk? The more stalwart I become..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts