Straight Ahead Science That Indicates Bigfoot Does Not Exist.

[Guest DWA]

I don't know whether it's inability to grasp stuff or sheer denial (which can have that effect).  But that the results of sample tests don't really have any bearing on the existence of sasquatch seems to be a real issue in skeptics' understanding.  When random folk send stuff in for testing, the results speak only to what was sent in, period.

[JohnP3907]

I guess if I had 100% no doubt BF is nothing more than a legend, I would just high tail it over to the unicorn forums and plead my case there, and then move on to the Loche Ness forum and so on without any return trips to those sites. What is the absolute motivation of a denialist to come back here so often? Surely the debate isn't worth the effort. I'm not condemning anyone, simply curious. 

This could (and probably should) be its own thread topic.

[Oonjerah]

Why would denialists bother to post here?

 

Just a guess: Need for attention is a big motivator.

[Terry]

Why would denialists bother to post here?

 

Just a guess: Need for attention is a big motivator.

 

Don't forget.  There is a difference between complete denialists and hopeful skeptics.

 

t.

[Sunflower]

Explain please????

[Guest DWA]

Don't forget.  There is a difference between complete denialists and hopeful skeptics.

 

t.

Not really; if neither category has done a good study of the evidence, effectively there's no difference at all.

You know how I know a writer like Kylie Hill is talking out of his/herposterior in that piece linked above. Simple. They do stupid things like decorate their piece with cartoons of the P/G film and nary a mention of what is show on the film. Might as well head it with, "I have no earthly of what I write about. Ignore all that follows." You want to step up to the Bigs? T

rot your flippant tush over to Bill Munns' turf and take him on toe-to-toe, and explain to him why you can ignore those images. Until you do, you will be in

the category of a pseudo-scientific poser only.

This.  I know this for a fact.

 

Now I might want to go to that link and open it, and read it, but why bother.  "Consider the source" has ...well, it has weight.  Besides, which, WSA has done it for me.  Way to take one for the team, WSA.

OK.  I actually read the OP.  (See how for some things, some things aren't necessary?)  Those seconds I will never get back.  Presuming that is typical of that straight ahead science, I am heading straight in the other direction.

[WSA]

Mon plaisir.

 

This is the positive feed-back loop of thought-stopping discourse, writ large. You tell me there is nothing to look at on the P/G film, and I say it back to you . Pretty soon, we both start believing it. Others read that, and they too get to join in.  Which, conveniently, allows us all to NOT, EVER analyze the images on the P/G film.  WIN-WIN!! (for willful ignorance).   

 

The longer opinions like Bill Munns' hang out there without substantive rebuttal, the more the opportunity to do something truly insightful and breathtaking builds. This should be low-hangers for our self-described "real" scientists.  Cut it to shreds boys and girls! Eviscerate his work! Stomp his forensics into dust and make him weep bitter tears of scorn and ruination! Make him burn his union card and rue the day he ever dabbled in your chosen fields!

 

But instead? We get this kind of facile crap. 

[Guest DWA]

You forgot about hearing the lamentations of his women.

 

I'll never get it, really, never will.  How could anyone miss how irrelevant his opinion is when repeated postings of same with nothing more than the same old Hollywood sheriff's office props standing in back of it pass the purview of people steeped in relevant life areas, who can detect bovine excrement with more than one sense?

 

Ya got me.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Not really; if neither category has done a good study of the evidence, effectively there's no difference at all.

 

You repeatedly say that the evidence needs to be looked at.  Perhaps what you mean is the evidence needs to be looked at and the the conclusions drawn from it be the same as yours.  Again unless you are in possession or have access to evidence several magnitudes better than the best that's circulates through the community you have not much to demand it's acceptance about.  Most likely we are all drawing from the same well.  What say you to the person who has read the books, studied the reports, seen the films, seen the photos, keeps up to date with latest available findings and still concludes that it's a loosing hand.  Yes concluding it is a loosing hand after having kept up with the issue possible longer than you have.

Don't forget.  There is a difference between complete denialists and hopeful skeptics.

 

t.

Then there is the finality of Dr McCoy saying  "He's dead Jim."  Sometimes abandoning hope is most intellectually honest thing to do.

[Guest]

The idea that straight ahead science indicates Bigfoot does not exist (to the delight of some)  is as ridiculous as me arguing there is no time either. So let me ask, who is this straight away science you speak of and where are they? We can argue time doesn’t exist and we don’t need straight ahead science to prove that do we? I’m just asking.

Fact is I haven’t seen any reports by the thousands from all across the country reporting they seen time running across the road or peeking in windows scaring people have you? No of course I haven’t and come to think of it, I’ve never heard of scientist lining up to prove the existence of time either but it rules our life to a large degree wouldn't you agree? 

 

Nobody has proof of time. You can’t prove time exist by your natural senses. I’ll bet you haven’t seen time either. It doesn’t smell, leave tracks or drop hair follicles and yet, somehow we (you, me, and all of us here) seem to find undeniable purposeful meanings for wrist watches and clocks (and I bet your wearing one right now), and it doesn’t prove or disprove a thing does it? Na not really ...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest Divergent1]

I can see both sides. I know what science INDICATES but if some of the pieces of the puzzle are missing, how sure can you be that everyone who see's a bigfoot is wrong? I know I can't say that with any certainty, There is nothing wrong with saying " I doubt it"; " I don't know"; or "I don't think that makes sense" rather than badgering the witnesses here with redundant criticism.

[Guest DWA]

Hey Crow, I want to see video of some other times you've peed into a hurricane.  Got those?

You forgot about hearing the lamentations of his women.

 

I'll never get it, really, never will.  How could anyone miss how irrelevant his opinion is when repeated postings of same with nothing more than the same old Hollywood sheriff's office props standing in back of it pass the purview of people steeped in relevant life areas, who can detect bovine excrement with more than one sense?

 

Ya got me.

I just wanted to make sure Crow read this.

[Guest Crowlogic]

The idea that straight ahead science indicates Bigfoot does not exist (to the delight of some)  is as ridiculous as me arguing there is no time either. So let me ask, who is this straight away science you speak of and where are they? We can argue time doesn’t exist and we don’t need straight ahead science to prove that do we? I’m just asking.

Fact is I haven’t seen any reports by the thousands from all across the country reporting they seen time running across the road or peeking in windows scaring people have you? No of course I haven’t and come to think of it, I’ve never heard of scientist lining up to prove the existence of time either but it rules our life to a large degree wouldn't you agree? 

 

Nobody has proof of time. You can’t prove time exist by your natural senses. I’ll bet you haven’t seen time either. It doesn’t smell, leave tracks or drop hair follicles and yet, somehow we (you, me, and all of us here) seem to find undeniable purposeful meanings for wrist watches and clocks (and I bet your wearing one right now), and it doesn’t prove or disprove a thing does it? Na not really ...

 

 

 

 

 

Here's one scientist who has devoted energy to the subject of time.  He's not the brightest light bulb but...............

 

Hey Crow, I want to see video of some other times you've peed into a hurricane.  Got those?

I just wanted to make sure Crow read this.

So am I to conclude that you are not in possession of evidence that is more convincing than the industry standard?  I will maintain my position that the proponent makes the decision to accept and the non believer makes the decision to reject all based on the same evidence.  

[Guest DWA]

I am in possession of much.  You would be too, were you inclined to do basic Western stuff like read and think, but I gotta leave that to you, can't do it for you.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I am in possession of much.  You would be too, were you inclined to do basic Western stuff like read and think, but I gotta leave that to you, can't do it for you.

Obviously you missed where I openly stated that I have read the books and the reports as well as the film and pictorial evidence.  Obviously your stand is that there is only one conclusion to the evidence but there is more than one.  There is the stand of rejecting the evidence and you and I differ because I will let anyone believe anything they want but I fully endorse those who have rejected the evidence as the evidence stands.  We can have this debate in 5 years and there will still be no bigfoot.