Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 It doesn't, at all. But you might find the logic very heavy sledding. Just trust me.
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) This thread isn't about scientific confirmation or about people taking pictures, DWA. It is about projects that have placed hundreds of trail cams and have captured unambiguous photos of most, if not all, large mammals in their survey area. Including, the super elusive and rare wolverine. We also have a letter confirming that there is no active suppressing of evidence and that nothing Bigfooty has ever been found by at least one project. This thread seeks to come up with answers as to why it is that every other large mammal shows up on these trail cams--in the heart of alleged Bigfoot habitat--yet mysteriously Bigfoot does not. It is not about why day hikers cannot get a picture of the creature. Societal denial has nothing to do with a trail cam sitting in the bush. "It doesn't, at all. But you might find the logic very heavy sledding. Just trust me. :O" So.....we're back to conspiracy theories? How novel and exciting... Edited January 7, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 No. What we're back to is the good ol' bigfoot-skeptic standby of substituting what one wants to think for confronting evidence. Which is why...just trust me. (Feel you, WSA. Feel you, man.) Oh, and as to this... It is about projects that have placed hundreds of trail cams and have captured unambiguous photos of most, if not all, large mammals in their survey area. Including, the super elusive and rare wolverine. We also have a letter confirming that there is no active suppressing of evidence and that nothing Bigfooty has ever been found by at least one project. This thread seeks to come up with answers as to why it is that every other large mammal shows up on these trail cams--in the heart of alleged Bigfoot habitat--yet mysteriously Bigfoot does not. Happens, man. Doesn't mean anything as long as the evidence is unaddressed. True Belief In The InFallibility Of Trailcams And Omneepeetent Scientists Placing Them is no different from True Belief in Santa Claus. It is not about why day hikers cannot get a picture of the creature. Societal denial has nothing to do with a trail cam sitting in the bush. Yes. They are Omneeepeeetent. And scientists knowing nothing about the animal that's not showing up has nothing - at all - to do with it, For They Are Omneeepeetent Too. Touching. (Scientist sees something he doesn't want to see on a trailcam; deletes it. Doesn't delete it; shows boss. Boss suppresses it. Evidence is, it's happening. But your faith in people you don't even know, who have very very very strong and basic economically-based motivations for behaving this way, that anyone would understand: truly touching.) Conspiracy theory is believing - with no evidence supporting it - that the society is conspiring to conjure up evidence of an eight-foot bipedal ape. THAT IS CLASSIC CONSPIRACY THEORY.
BobbyO Posted January 7, 2014 SSR Team Posted January 7, 2014 Who knows if they got pictures or not and ultimately, who cares as even if they did and released them, we'd be having this exact same thread on this forum with the pictures added,with the exact same people ripping them apart anyway. It's like Groundhog Day on steroids on here sometimes.
WSA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 You know Bobby O, now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a groundhog in a trail cam shot either. Well, at least one that was incontrovertably a groundhog anyway. Co-inky-dink? Hmmmm.....
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Happens, man. Doesn't mean anything as long as the evidence is unaddressed. True Belief In The InFallibility Of Trailcams And Omneepeetent Scientists Placing Them is no different from True Belief in Santa Claus. Or true belief in a giant ape-mans ability to magically avoid hundreds of trail cams in the middle of his alleged stomping grounds? As pointed out in other threads, evidence gets addressed. Bigfootery has a standing offer from Dr.Sykes to perform DNA testing on physical evidence. What more could you ask for? And I will never understand how you snidely disparage scientists from one side of your mouth calling them "omneepeetent" while complaining that the same scientists will not address the evidence? What evidence would you have them address beyond the standing offer to examine any physical evidence submitted? Should scientists gather around and examine blurry photos? Should they huddle together and swap spooky Bigfoot stories? The best avenue to confirmation is through physical evidence. Either a slab monkey or a piece of one. Again, you have a top tier scientist waiting in the wings for this evidence. And yet, you still complain and poke fun at scientists all at the same time. What is it you truly want? Do you expect science to suddenly say " Ok, we have just the right amount of stories and ambiguous blobsquatches. We're confident in saying Bigfoot is real"? That is never going to happen without the proper evidence. And right now, Bigfootery has nothing close to the proper evidence. Bigfoots real end of story.Next question. Thank-you for your most erudite contribution to this discussion. Edited January 7, 2014 by dmaker
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 "Conspiracy theory is believing - with no evidence supporting it - that the society is conspiring to conjure up evidence of an eight-foot bipedal ape." DWA No evidence supporting it? Surely, you can't be serious? There is a hoax right now making the news in some areas ( Dyer). There was one a couple of weeks back with that fake, mummified head photo being touted as a BF. I could go on and on and on. In fact, this person even added in a nice little anecdote of a previous sighting many years prior to this photo. We have evidence of people faking trackways as well. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that people fabricate Bigfoot evidence. To refuse to accept this is to deny the reality of the situation.
WSA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Man Smart. Woman Smarter? (Into Aiko...) Bigfoot maybe smarter still, when playing in their ballyard. Rock that idea a little and you might be getting the picture. Oh, the humanity.
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 You know Bobby O, now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a groundhog in a trail cam shot either. Well, at least one that was incontrovertably a groundhog anyway. Co-inky-dink? Hmmmm..... Ferret? Ever seen one of them? I THOUGHT SO.... Who knows if they got pictures or not and ultimately, who cares as even if they did and released them, we'd be having this exact same thread on this forum with the pictures added,with the exact same people ripping them apart anyway. It's like Groundhog Day on steroids on here sometimes. There is nothing cooler than being on the cutting edge of science...unless you're one of the ones getting cut...
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) So the sum of your rebuttal ( WSA and DWA) is that Bigfeets are super smart and, well, ferrets and groundhogs? Well I guess, to be fair, DWA did throw in the it doesn't matter what shows up on camera as long as science refuses to read all my Bigfoot stories and look at my blobsquatches argument. As if any of that somehow makes Bigfeets invisible to trail cams. Edited January 7, 2014 by dmaker
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Kit, But still, these photos are not a bear or a tree stump or a owl. And we vet them based solely on their appearance.......and yet we don't really know what a Sasquatch looks like. Well isn't that it? Why would I trust a bigfoot skeptic to tell me what a bigfoot should look like?
dmaker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I wouldn't tell you what a Bigfoot should look like. You have stated that you think Patty is real, so one can assume that you think Bigfeets look like Patty-- or some reasonable semblance. I can tell you what I think looks fake however.
Guest DWA Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 And Patty doesn't, and I'm not taking your word over qualified scientists who say she isn't. Everything else? Explained on this site, by me and others, times beyond counting. But... (And the funny thing about it is they have no idea how it reads.)
Recommended Posts