Guest Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 As long as sasquatch doesn't show up dispute the opportunities. Bigfoot skepticism will always be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 8, 2014 Share 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. They can prove I'm wrong when they bring in their Bigfoot. It shouldn't be too hard if their stories are to be believed unless they are completely inept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ^^ 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. Still waiting for you to prove how you can always tell the difference between a photo of a "real" animal and a "fake" animal ? For example, how can you prove that the Groundhog photos Kitkaze posted weren't stuffed Groundhogs. Or for that matter digitally created Groundhogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Faith, my friend. Faith sets you free of intellect! You can SEE again...! Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Where is that written as some sort of immutable law? It's not a law but anyone interacting with bears, lions, gorillas, Bigfoot should be able to produce some verifiable evidence of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Still waiting for you to prove how you can always tell the difference between a photo of a "real" animal and a "fake" animal ? For example, how can you prove that the Groundhog photos Kitkaze posted weren't stuffed Groundhogs. Or for that matter digitally created Groundhogs? Simple Larry, I put it to the same test as I do Patty-- I look at it. Does it look real to me or fake to me? It is really that simple. I am not on a crusade to prove to you that the groundhog pics are real. Look at them and make up your own mind. I could not care less what you think of them. But really, is this the best you have to offer this thread? Question: Why does Bigfoot not show up on trail cams in areas where every other large mammal has made an appearance? LarryP: Hey, that groundhog could be fake!! Thanks for participating Larry. Faith, my friend. Faith sets you free of intellect! You can SEE again...! And the prize for obfuscation in a thread goes to .....DWA! Again. Congrats. Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 This is actually like leaving sweet corn and hot cakes out for a bigfoot. Post...and see two blue bars. Post...and see two blue bars. I'll try to get thermal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) No one asked for an obfuscation encore, but thanks anyway I guess. Though the irony in that is lovely: look for Bigfoot, find bears. Gotcha. Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Only one bar. More corn, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 8, 2014 Author Share Posted January 8, 2014 Wolverine-Forest Carnivore Research in the Northern Cascades of Oregon... http://dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/docs/wolverine_project_2013_mid-season_progress_report.pdf Monitoring Wolverines in Northeast Oregon... http://wolverinefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Wallowa-Wolverine-Final-Report_2013.pdf The best part is the meticulous documentation of species recorded other than wolverines... Bigfoot, not so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Surely Bigfoot must have been recorded, but the evidence destroyed. This is what proponents would have us believe. They offer zero supporting evidence of this however. Kit has been industrious enough to solicit a response from at least one of these groups conducting these studies. A response that clearly refutes the claim that BF evidence is being covered up. Still, however, proponents will cling to the unsupported claim that BF photos are being destroyed or "swept under the rug". Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Well at least we're getting cool pictures out of this. I just have less faith than some in "hey boss, bigfoot's real! Look..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) " I just have less faith than some in "hey boss, bigfoot's real! Look..." DWA There is a dichotomy built into this comment. On the one hand wildlife officials cannot be trusted as custodians of BF evidence. They will destroy it or pretend they didn't see it. They have to safeguard the status quo. Yet, puzzling is that on the other hand when witness reports come from the same wildlife officials they are treated as extra trustworthy because of the source. The argument from authority pleading knows no bounds when it comes to Bigfoot reports coming from the same officials you say cannot be trusted to report Bigfoot evidence at all. So which is it? Wildlife officials will destroy or ignore Bigfoot evidence, or they will report it when they see one because they are such a trustworthy and experienced group and no one could doubt a report coming from such an individual? Sort of boggles the mind a little bit. Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Youse guys over there, say: "Bigfoot avoided the cameras or the photos got supressed." Youse guys over here, say: "There were no Bigfoots." We'll all then go get a drink and get down to the REAL issue here. Which is: "Who has the strength to endure much more of this?" See you at the bar. Edited January 8, 2014 by WSA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts