Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Some people's handles just scream "ignore what I say." He could get that thing obscuring his vision off his face too. It's truly funny watching people's pell-mell screaming run in the opposite direction of common sense. "how's that pattyfake bombshell coming?" isn't desperate; it's a direct pointing out that one needs to get off the denial and accept that PGF is authentic. 46 years, people, and no Great Pumpfake yet. I can have good grammar when i please..im posting off a cell phone.. Thanks though 'denialist' nice name bud
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 This thread isn't about the PrettyGoodFake. There are plenty of threads for that.
Guest Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I'm not big on getting way off topic, but I will reply to the PGF authenticity...I have said it before and I will say it again, if Patty was real we would have BFs in every zoo by now. She slowly plodded across that sandbar, no discernible "ninja-like" skills displayed on that video. If that is how BFs act, hunters would have no problem going into the woods, tranquilizing one, hauling it out, and then home by dinner. What we have is 45+ years of nothing. I know that tells me something.
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 With this back and forth, I think we can all agree that if BF exists, they actively avoid camera traps, or are very lucky. Cotter, there's no such thing as luck and BF does exist. So what does that leave you with?
Guest Cervelo Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Don't forget about this guy! Less than one year part time gets photo of 1 wolverine....no Bigfoot....but one wolverine http://www.foundmichigan.org/wp/2012/09/19/tracking-michigans-last-wolverine/
WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Got it, I think. BF has an absolute, pathological need and abilitiy to avoid little colored dots on maps. Egawd, those things are absolutely EVERYWHERE! (Bipto should fer sure screen Area X and de-con all such from the vicinity). When oh when will we learn?!!
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 So just because they can't put something in your hot little hands, there's nothing? I'll take them over you; they are, after all, there. Calling people liars certainly...well, as they say in Minnesota, "that's different." This thread points up maybe better than any I've seen here the general level of public ignorance - particularly on the part of scientists - of the actual theory and practice of science. It's a continuous defense of the indefensible. How is the common-sense realization that land-management and wildlife-research schmoes have very very good reasons not to be seen as nuts by the uninformed evading people? That's faith. It ain't science. Anyone claiming to have interaction with a large animal should be able to provide some physical or photographic evidence. How is not believing the stories coming out of area x faith? The stories haven't been backed up by physical or photographic evidence. Should scientists believe all stories without corroborating evidence they hear then?
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) I really worry about people who sprinkle Jimmies on maps and yell, proof! My oh my me, bigfooters are quite the tonic after a round of that stuff. Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Anyone claiming to have interaction with a large animal should be able to provide some physical or photographic evidence. Where is that written as some sort of immutable law?
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 And anyone saying that all this evidence is being produced by liars, the deluded and the deranged should be able to prove that too. Any decade now.
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 ...and that sort of thinking is why I take the proponents seriously and the skeptics, not.
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) ^^ DWA. Wrong. It is impossible to disprove a sighting. One cannot disprove a duck sighting anymore than a Bigfoot sighting. You know that. Everyone here should know that. All it takes is common sense to know that. Try applying it in this case and stop making the impossible sound possible because it suits your purposes to discredit skepticism in regards to Bigfoot. I find that intellectually dishonest. It is theoretically possible, however, to prove that Bigfoot exists. Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker
Recommended Posts