Bigfoot Is Nearly Everywhere Is An Untenable Pretense

[ohiobill]

JDL - Sure, there are plenty of topics that get dismissed more easily. Pretty much anything featured at a Texas bigfoot conference. Lake monsters, lizardmen, dogmen, chupacabra, fairies (tooth or otherwise), elves, faking of the moon landing, etc. Do you believe in everything DWA does or in everything ever claimed in every thread here?

 

Crow's topic stands on it's own without regard to one's personal sighting history - all the stories about sassy aren't true. It's not everywhere it's reported. It's not riding the caboose in overalls while smoking tobacco. There are many witnesses who were mistaken, lying, or hoaxed. You can be sure that there are members here who routinely lie and embellish their encounters. EVERY habituation scenario so far examined has been proven to be misrepresented. Pretending that there is hard evidence available for study is silly. The majority of lay researchers don't even try to collect evidence. They collect stories and draw sketches.The vast majority of scientists who have looked into the subject have come away unimpressed. Same for most in the media, print or otherwise.

[Guest DWA]

[Major not engaged indicator = post above this one]

 

Once again:  No one who has examined the evidence in depth comes down negatively on this topic.  NO ONE.  Ever.

 

Ohiobill won't find an exception.  No one ever has.  His second to last sentence is missing a key clause.  Let me help.

 

The vast majority of scientists who have looked into the subject have tossed around baseless assumptions; done no in-depth review or thinking; and as one might expect, have come away unimpressed. 

 

There, fixed.  Anyone that anyone puts up as an example has not done nearly the reading or thinking that I have, much less Meldrum or Krantz or Bindernagel.

 

(His last sentence is immaterial.  Because "media.")

[JDL]

Certainly there is misrepresentation.  But to assert that some misrepresentation, whether more, or less prevalent, invalidates all evidence, is also a misrepresentation.

[Guest Crowlogic]

You are a true believer, absolutely.  You are a true believer in what you want to believe, and you are not interested in being told differently.

 

"Giving something a half century to materialize" is about as insisting on spoon feeding as it gets. I didn't do that; why I am so far ahead of you on this.

 

How many times do I have to say this?  Everything available to me is available to you, and even worse you have been told about it innumerable times!  That common saying applies only to bigfoot skeptics; and as they have, as yet, come up with zero evidence to discredit this...by their own thinking they are done! and we need to accept sasquatch as real.

Yes I truly believe that there is no bigfoot.  I truly believe that I will die some day.  I won't argue who is ahead of whom.  The difference is I am not claiming to be ahead or behind.  I am merely stating that I do not subscribe to the reality of bigfoot.  I am certain we have read the same books and have seen the same reports, photos movies and heard many of the same interviews.  The difference is how we have weighed the evidence against the total picture.  It is the total picture I assure you is what needs to be accounted for.  The minuscule amount of occasional piece of noteworthy evidence does not mean that the entire picture is absolved of question.  All it means is at a given point a curious artifact is found.  I realized that we get garbage going in and we get a tiny bit of anti garbage along with it but nothing comes out.  Nothing comes out and nothing has ever come out. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Certainly there is misrepresentation.  But to assert that some misrepresentation, whether more, or less prevalent, invalidates all evidence, is also a misrepresentation.

Exactly why should bigfootism be awarded such a pass?  When dealing with reasonable topics that carry with them a reasonable catalog of  truth giving the grace of doubt is worthy.  But we're not dealing with a subject that was forged withing the bounds of truth.  It's exactly the opposite.  Virtually every person alive today is aware of bigfoot because of the hoaxing of Ray Wallace.  

[Doc Holliday]

agreed JDL.  

 

the inverse is also true ......if we assert , as some do , that all reports / purported evidence are valid just because someone says it is we misrepresent the enormous amount of bogus info mixed in with the few good kernels.

 

there in lies the rub with BFery..... discernment.

 

problem is the extremes on either side of this have little of it regarding the opposing view...... so yes, kind of like politics......where the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle .

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Virtually every person alive today is aware of bigfoot because of the hoaxing of Ray Wallace.  

 

Reports were coming in way before Ray Wallace started hoaxing. The name "Bigfoot" was popularized in 1958 when a construction crew in northern California found Large footprints. The footprints that were found don't match the fake ones that were made by Ray Wallace.

[Guest DWA]

What a hoot, when 90% of North Americans don't know who Ray Wallace is.  Gotta stop fixating on the dross, Crowbrah.

[JDL]

I'll go with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  They take bigfoot seriously and have put it in writing.  Federal acknowledgement.

 

You know, Crow, most of us who have encountered bigfoot face to face are very careful about new information, because we don't want to get hoaxed.  We throw out a lot of stuff that is even the least bit suspicious.  Some, on the other hand throw everything out on principal without making an honest effort to examine the strongest evidence.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JDL

[Guest Crowlogic]

Reports were coming in way before Ray Wallace started hoaxing. The name "Bigfoot" was popularized in 1958 when a construction crew in northern California found Large footprints. The footprints that were found don't match the fake ones that were made by Ray Wallace.

Did you know Jerry Crew was an employee of Ray Wallace?  Did you know Ray made more than one style of stomper?  Jerry may not have known what Ray was up to but he was there because he worked for Ray.  A bit too much of a coincidence to get real tracks in the middle of the hoaxing giant Ray Wallace .

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think that's where Ray Wallace might have gotten the idea from. I don't think it's something he came up with on his own because such tracks were being found before the 50's as well. Plus there's the Patterson film which was recorded near the construction area.

 

Edited June 3, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[BigTreeWalker]

Something I can't figure out Crow is how you reconcile the fact that everyone who has seen bigfoot and knows for certain they are not mistaken, must be liars. In your way of seeing the BF world that is the only logical answer. Misidentification doesn't work because they know what they saw, therefore they must be lying.

What a way to look at other people's experiences. Or other people for that matter.

Edited June 3, 2015 by BigTreeWalker

[Guest Crowlogic]

Something I can't figure out Crow is how you reconcile the fact that everyone who has seen bigfoot and knows for certain they are not mistaken, must be liars. In your way of seeing the BF world that is the only logical answer. Misidentification doesn't work because they know what they saw, therefore they must be lying.

What a way to look at other people's experiences. Or other people for that matter.

I'd say that a good number of people claiming to have seen bigfoot are indeed straight out liars.  Liars lie for any number of reasons.  A few folks simply think they saw bigfoot and a few for lack of a better explanation say they saw Bigfoot.  Understand I am not about to call anyone a liar but the counterpoint to the person saying they have undoubtedly seen bigfoot is easy enough to produce.  All you have to do is listen to any proven hoaxer as the hoax was being developed and you have your answer.  Every hoaxer lies with a straight face and will insist up down and sideways that they are telling the truth.  Because the bigfoot paradigm is so laced with liars, hoaxers, hucksters and funsters it's all guilty until proven innocent.  When Life Magazine photographed Ray Wallace's work site with the hundreds of tracks all over he stood tall and told them with a straight face indeed there's this big something walking around up there.  The bigfoot paradigm simply cried wolf one too many times and the telling thing is so far it is all just the stuff of make believe.  People get into things for any number of reasons, and sometimes it is to gain membership in a club.  You can event witness this in watching Finding Bigfoot where they anoint a person that's had a sighting they like into the club.  No matter how you slice it everything anyone has ever seen or done regarding the existence of this thing has provided nothing that confirms it's reality.  

[BigTreeWalker]

Without actually saying it, that's a round about way of saying yes.

[JDL]

You know, Crow is just the latest in a string of at least twenty guys Exactly, and I do mean Exactly, like him I've seen on this board.  He hasn't said one original thing in all of the posts I've seen.  Nor is his stance anywhere near original.  The only people to whom his arguments are new are new members of the board and himself.

 

Most folks are on here because they have had an experience, or have a general interest in bigfoot.  Others are on here simply because they like messing with the sincere members.  Eventually they tire of their own game and fade away.