kitakaze Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 What's the harm in getting that Meldrum guide in researchers' packs? They skeeeeered? You skeeeeeered? Dear forest biologist/tracker/conservation worker, Thank you for including this field guide in your field pack. Bigfoots are wary creatures. Please be on the look out for their tracks. They look like these... If you do come into contact with a Bigfoot, and are thinking to document evidence of it, follow the proper procedure (4:10)... Should you obtain video evidence of a Bigfoot, analysis is important... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Ahhhh DWA, you know. We all have our blindspots, and I've mapped a good many of mine as well. Not that I think heated discourse isn't useful....I just get more of that in my real world than I can stomach, usually, and I can always get more of it if I want it. To those who lack that, well.... seems like they've come to the right place, that is for sure. Don't kid ourselves though, we ain't accomplishing much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Oh believe me, I'm having fun here. Shoot, who can't have fun with the world's largest primate being in, among other places, New Jersey and Iowa? I'm just trying to imagine going on a Santa Claus: He's Real! site and arguing on and on and on about the opposite point of view. Not doing that. For some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) ^^^Better than taking mommy at her word and not working to expand that knowledge base. I had a better logical approach to this topic, by age 11, than I have ever seen from a bigfoot skeptic. But as WSA says: that could just be them being clever. This actually sheds some light. You started believing in bigfoot when you were 11 and you haven't looked back. Oh yes, you make grand claims to skepticism, but it's painfully obvious to most here that those are paper thin. You outright reject any study that even suggests that the woods might not be crawling with bigfeets. You mock any scientist or mainstream source that suggests bigfoot might not be real. You will only listen to Meldrum and a small handful of other academics , the opinion of said academics you repeat here on a daily basis. You have claimed that you believe this alleged creature exists. You announce this belief in advance of proof. Where is the skepticism in any of that? I believed in a lot of silly things when I was 11 too, but then I grew up. Edited January 10, 2014 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 I had a better logical approach to this topic, by age 11, than I have ever seen from a bigfoot skeptic. The logic where you make absurd non sequitur comparisons with rhinos and Bigfoots, ignore your own sources like Patterson, insist on things you know not to be true like no one looking for longer than P&G before NAWAC, trot out teenage written piffle as compelling evidence, then refuse to address any of it and play WWF? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/page-35#entry803299 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/5116-cascades-carnivore-project-how-do-they-miss-the-bigfoots/page-35#entry803267 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, that is what people tend to do, when they simply shut off their logic assessors and BS detectors when addressing a topic. Your right; your call. If I had no curiosity about this topic - I mean, if Santa's real, well shut ma mouth! - I'd just be spending precious time somewhere else. Me? I get to both examine zoology's biggest unanswered question from an informed point of view, and see how funny people can be when they don't intend it! Win/win! Can't help but notice that other than me the only ones monitoring this thread now are bigfoot skeptics. Can you say "Titanic"? [jumps into lifeboat] see ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Wait for me..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 instead you like to waste your time here bickering back and forth with "skeptics"? Again with all of this evidence, and scientific research knowledge why not write a review paper? would that not be good use of time? If I was sitting on a "compelling large body of evidence" regarding the subject and seemed as passionate about it as you do and as frustrated and fed up with main stream science as you do I would do something about. Probably wouldn't take more than 2 months of writing before submission, heck maybe 1 month considering the way you type/post on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hey DWA, I admire your stamina man I really do! I gave up (out of sheer boredom) way way back. In the face of endless animated gifs, coloured dots, self satisfaction and an expection that everyone who even considers the concept of sasquatch biologically plausible should be beyond any reproach (hey, I heard Jeff Meldrum once took a library book back late...sasquatch is clearly fake), your continued presence is admirable. Can't say I agree with all you say but you're clearly having fun! Keep on keepin on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (And of course he checks back in...watching "Titanic" go down was so fun they made a movie, right?) Well, I am. I guess all those clever ways to perpetuate ignorance that WSA refers to are at least half as interesting to me as the putative critter. OK. Off to tell off the Warren Commission! (6,959 posts!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 wow, sure showed us skeptics, going to take a while to recover from this verbal shellacking that was full of cited hard evidence, titanic... that was a good one, so pwned. (disclaimer - sarcasm is not always as obvious as one would like when being expressed via text) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 ^^^Takes a good man to know he's been crushed. Thanks! (Crop Circles! So WRONG! See ya....8,875 posts...!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 HA! Fooled you. I was in the lifeboat too, but the coxswain noticed my purse didn't match my shoes, gol durnit!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yeah!!! Well look at this study! TITANIC DIDN'T SINK... [The Titanic Didn't Sink Project. Reading is Believing! We're SCIENTISTS CLICK HERE] I mean, like, who knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Well, I got you checkmated on that one mate. I have located A DOT in the N. Atlantic corresponding to the actual place it went down. Well, near there. O.K., ABOVE where it went down. Close to where it came to rest. But not exactly ON the spot, you understand. Just don't raise the subject of the Apollo landings, alright? Uncle Biggey used to wear us out every Thanksgiving and Easter on THAT tirade. We were forbidden as children to even note in passing what phase the moon was in so as to not trigger the whole epistle all over again. He would have gone, oh, 10,784 posts, easy-peasey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts