Guest Starling Posted June 17, 2017 Posted June 17, 2017 6 hours ago, DWA said: One wonders what they will say. Here some of us have been on an uttermost frontier of the hard sciences for FIFTY YEARS, SINCE WE WERE TEN. And genius here will only find out...the day the rest of the world knows. After all the chances we've given him and his ilk to be in on history before it happens. (SCOTLAND, GUFFAW.) Fifty years,eh? And look how far you and the other correct and proper smart people have moved the dial with all that luxurious research time. Not at all. No further than any genius (and oh how many tried!) who tried to make Nessie more than just a convenient talisman for the local tourist board. The arrogance of self-supposed competence coupled with the insight of a flea. The terrible irony of claiming intellectual ownership of a huge hairy hominid whilst having no capacity to understand the basics of human nature in either it's micro or macro forms. What a magnificent peanut! I'd have happily met you somewhere in the middle, you know. That's where most conversations take place. As I said, I can see the merit in some of your arguments. But this monolithic conceit and utter contempt for any other thought on the subject is, frankly, terminal. (I was warned!) So your opinion becomes less something I should be amazed and respectful of and now I just, inevitably, see it as amusing. You see I mistakenly thought you were forceful and opinionated because your point of view was one that would come into focus. Now I see the truth of it. This isn't about Bigfoot at all. This is just about an infantile pseudo -intellectualism strutting about lecturing lesser mortals who are too dim-witted to see the magnificent truth only you and a select few are privy to. Unfortunately, as others have all too accurately reported...science doesn't work the way you explain it, DWA. Science doesn't care about your mountain of reports because the more there are without accompanying evidence more compelling than the spittle of moonshine you and your fifty years have managed to come up with the more they point towards only one thing. Prove me, wrong is your hollow, desperate cry. Well, (cracks opens beer and puts feet up with serene smile) I don't need to. I'm more than satisfied I have my answer now. And I can thank you for that. You really have been an education. You ain't got nothin. And there simply isn't a line long enough to plumb the depths of your credulous gullibility.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 3:33 PM, dmaker said: We scientists, huh? I think your report fever has clouded your judgement. You believe the below is a picture of an actual bigfoot. There was a second image that was taken as well along with a size comparison done by the TBRC
dmaker Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 Yes, I know. They are all equally ridiculous. I am particularly fond of the sad, fat bigfoot staring at his feet. So, I posted that one. The others do not strengthen the case for the one I posted in any way.
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 dmaker just doesn't know how to think about stuff. That's a bigfoot. You just need to be able to read, and think.
dmaker Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 Really? This is a bigfoot, but since I can't think read, or think, I don't know it?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 The shot of the side was supposedly taken when it was turning to walk away. Height of the subject seems to be roughly 8 feet.
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) You have to tell me what that could be, and you have to have read the backstory, and, oh, have a good grounding in the encounter literature, which says: That's a bigfoot. I wonder whether, if we took a blurry photo of dmaker, that would mean he didn't exist. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Edited June 18, 2017 by DWA
dmaker Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 If I recall the back story correctly, there was a tribal meet up the night before and these folks were cleaning up the area the next day. Is that correct? Maybe fat bigfoot was looking for empties to cash in for money to buy Luck's Baked Beans? This is the background: " In November 2000 Russell Lumpmouth, a member of the Arapaho tribe, took two photographs that appear to feature a sasquatch-like figure. According to his account, he and several co-workers were cleaning up after an outdoor tribal function. His supervisor walked over a short distance from their vehicles to pose for a picture with a piece of litter seen lying on the ground. Lumpmouth followed with a borrowed digital camera. As he looked through the viewfinder and took the picture, he noted the appearance of a dark object in the background, visible through gaps in the foliage that aligned from his position. Advancing a step or two out of curiosity, he took a second picture as the subject turned and departed. The men did not initiate a pursuit. "
Guest Starling Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 8 hours ago, dmaker said: If I recall the back story correctly, there was a tribal meet up the night before and these folks were cleaning up the area the next day. Is that correct? Maybe fat bigfoot was looking for empties to cash in for money to buy Luck's Baked Beans? This is the background: " In November 2000 Russell Lumpmouth, a member of the Arapaho tribe, took two photographs that appear to feature a sasquatch-like figure. According to his account, he and several co-workers were cleaning up after an outdoor tribal function. His supervisor walked over a short distance from their vehicles to pose for a picture with a piece of litter seen lying on the ground. Lumpmouth followed with a borrowed digital camera. As he looked through the viewfinder and took the picture, he noted the appearance of a dark object in the background, visible through gaps in the foliage that aligned from his position. Advancing a step or two out of curiosity, he took a second picture as the subject turned and departed. The men did not initiate a pursuit. " Wow. He is a big fella, isn't he? More chub than chunk. It takes me back to my 'calories consumed' issue. You have to wonder how such a massive animal can remain wonderously stealthy and elusive when he's carting a load like that. One has to imagine they're almost supernatural light on their feet to make tip-toeing through the undergrowth such a breeze. Perhaps he's gone rogue, though? Got himself kicked out of the tribe for eating too many berries and snaffling more than his fair share of deer: "Right...that's enough, Ugwart! It's 'all you can eat'....not all you CAN eat!'
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 OK, guys, I don't know what you're saying - I just see three blue lines - but the pathetic part is, I can guess. You're running around screeching FLAT EARTH when satellites are orbiting it, putting this site on your PHONE. Stop it. You're looking SILLY. Do you know why bigfoot's real? 1. It is, and that doesn't change when people run around screeching it isn't; and 2. SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS. And their findings are UNCONTESTED. Because contesting scientific findings requires EVIDENCE. See, that's how this science thing works. Everything is provisional and can change tomorrow given more evidence. And right now, the only side having presented ANY evidence in this discussion has proven sasquatch real. Sorry, but that is the way it works. Don't contest findings, and they stand. I say elsewhere that truth does not depend on all the ignorant knowing. Most scientific facts are barely known - and most of those not at all - outside the practitioners in the field. Doesn't make them any less facts. Now the reason you are on Ignore is that I perceive you to be contesting facts, which is, itself, a fact, as in, you ARE, and that's just wasting bandwidth that I can use more productively in serious discussion. (Greys. Honestly, Starling.) When you bring me a scientist who can conclusively tell us we've got this all wrong, I'll listen. Like hell I will, I mean why? You won't see me on this site anymore. Why stay if this isn't real, right? Now. Why do I think that is never gonna happen? MMMMMMMMMMMM? (Watch all the science in the replies. For me, because I won't see it.) All this stuff about "we need a body" is thorough flat-earth anti-science. Do we need a body for black holes? Dark matter? Neutron stars? Big Bang? Stop. (Those photos up there are of a bigfoot. There is nothing else it could logically be. But you gotta read, and think, to know that.) Find something else to DO.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, DWA said: Find something else to DO. Yes, you really should.
Recommended Posts