roguefooter Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) If none of it can be proven to be real, then how can you call any of it "real stuff"? Leave it to a bigfoot skeptic. [Makes the big WHOOOOSH motion over his head] Reread, and think. Hey everyone, look at me! You'll believe anything won't you. Says the guy claiming that anecdotal evidence is proof of existence. when you GUFFAW think Skookum is a FLYING ELK...!!! But a footless flying Bigfoot is okay.. And tell me where all those stoodious folks think the elk went from that imprint..without having to stand up. There were elk tracks present around the imprint. No Bigfoot tracks. Maybe Dr Meldrum should have done a little more research on that. http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/ would miss the most important thing I said in that thread: that scientists aren't making a joke when they make press releases. People rely on their judgment. Right, because scientists can't have a sense of humor and aren't allowed to participate in APRIL FOOLS DAY. Still in denial of being duped two months later. That I did is what a scientist should. Said DWA at the top of this page: "Assumptions; presumptions; "people do x;" "you would have done y" like you know that; "eyewitnesses are unreliable" as if that's true; stating things as true for which one has no evidence...for you guys, the lack of fun never stops, does it." Edited June 6, 2015 by roguefooter
roguefooter Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Those who know sasquatch exists have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. That is not their job. Making a claim does not mean the claimant has to prove the hypothesis. I'm not asking anyone to prove existence. I'm only calling people on their claims. Proponents don't have to prove existence, at least not to me. It's when they start making unfounded claims, well, that's a whole different ballgame. You could tell me your experiences all day long, but what you perceive as being 'factual' during that encounter ends there. Bring it to a factual debate and I'll expect you to back them up. Edited June 6, 2015 by roguefooter
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Every declaration you make that bf is proven is an untruth and shows arrogance and ignorance. No, actually, that would be YOU, and the diff is that yours is an unfounded opinion and mine is fact. But do persist in your illusion. I at least read up on what's going on here...which is that this is proven. One has to understand that "proven" has nothing to do with how many people knowing nothing about it agree. It has to do with: all evidence favoring A and zero favoring B...for over a half century now. This is what is called "settled science." My end game in this? Just wanted to spark some discussion instead of the backslapping and high fives that have been going around here lately. You aren't going to get discussion unless you stop saying the same wrong things over and over and over and over and...start assessing the evidence and talking about it rather than clouds in your coffee. Deedub how do YOU propose a bigfoot should be captured? NAWAC's doing it. That they haven't accomplished it on your schedule says, really, nothing worth addressing. Fund them full time, and you might get what you want. Crow - I agree, it seems silly to claim that science has never examined the subject. We've had numerous direct investigations and countless examples of indirect investigations by biologists and naturalists over the years with no proof. I want a list, every one fully discussed so that people reading it can see - with zero assistance from me - that you are talking through your hat. Every birdwatcher, hiker, hunter, fisherman, survivalist, logger, trapper, driver etc is a de facto squatcher and amateur or professional biologist! No. I'll just take thousands of them, repeatedly relating details that laymen just do not know and therefore cannot make up, over one measly you who hasn't bothered to get read up on this. Hey everyone, look at me! Yet another hard-hitting dissection of my stance. You must be proud. Is this what you always do arguing with people? No wonder you always lose. Says the guy claiming that anecdotal evidence is proof of existence. It's not, but that sentence is proof that you don't know what is. What is the big barrier to getting equal with me on this? Right. Interest. You just aren't interested. You can't be bothered to think about this. Ever thought about checking out other websites? Go after fairies, unicorns, and bending spoons with your mind. You're not making inroads here. I'm talking facts. You? But a footless flying Bigfoot is okay.. ...says the man who hasn't read enough about this to know why there are no sasquatch tracks in the cast! Wadago, stoodious. There were elk tracks present around the imprint. No Bigfoot tracks. Maybe Dr Meldrum should have done a little more research on that. http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/21/the-case-of-the-skookum-elk-cast/ ...says the man who hasn't read enough about this to know why the elk tracks visible mean nothing as they give an elk no way to get out of the imprint! Wadago, stoodious. Right, because scientists can't have a sense of humor and aren't allowed to participate in APRIL FOOLS DAY. Still in denial of being duped two months later. Nope. I read it right; you read it wrong. I told you why, there and here; you just don't get it. Remember, you're the one getting duped. You have been here for 3,371 posts! and you don't understand what is going on here. That's wowsville. The "scientists'" post WAS NOT MADE ON APRIL FOOL'S DAY. You really didn't read *anything* in that thread, did you. Said DWA at the top of this page: "Assumptions; presumptions; "people do x;" "you would have done y" like you know that; "eyewitnesses are unreliable" as if that's true; stating things as true for which one has no evidence...for you guys, the lack of fun never stops, does it." Thanks. Still true, isn't it. You bigfoot skeptics are your own best enemy. Edited June 6, 2015 by DWA
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 ^^^ That's what I thought. Back to ignore for Donn.
roguefooter Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Yet another hard-hitting dissection of my stance. You must be proud. Is this what you always do arguing with people? No wonder you always lose. Hypocrisy at it's finest. It's not, but that sentence is proof that you don't know what is. What is the big barrier to getting equal with me on this? Right. Interest. You just aren't interested. You can't be bothered to think about this. Ever thought about checking out other websites? Go after fairies, unicorns, and bending spoons with your mind. You're not making inroads here. I'm talking facts. You? Maybe you should go check them out, then you'll see the same "repeatedly relating details" from the reports. Who knows, maybe you'll declare fairies and unicorns real too. Nope. I read it right; you read it wrong. I told you why, there and here; you just don't get it. Remember, you're the one getting duped. You have been here for 3,371 posts! and you don't understand what is going on here. That's wowsville. The "scientists'" post WAS NOT MADE ON APRIL FOOL'S DAY. You really didn't read *anything* in that thread, did you. Both videos clearly showed a big wrinkly Halloween costume, yet you're arguing about it being posted the night before like that somehow makes a difference. Holy cow. ...says the man who hasn't read enough about this to know why the elk tracks visible mean nothing as they give an elk no way to get out of the imprint! Wadago, stoodious. Except the link I posted shows just that. An elk springing up from a wallow using the flat of it's legs (which were on it's side) and not positioned underneath with it's hooves. Face it, Meldrum screwed up. Edited June 6, 2015 by roguefooter
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Nope, tired of playing guys. You really got to start engaging this mentally. This stuff you are doing reads too much like self-torture, which is what is gonna happen when you play proof-or-trash! with each new thing that comes out, because you have no grasp of the big picture. That, not starting silly threads where you say the same stuff over again, is where the fun and the science are.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 6, 2015 Author Posted June 6, 2015 ^^^ This is why we can't have nice things.
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 OK, gang. Purpose of the thread: a bold new approach to bigfoot research. You wanted a real one. So let somebody who knows what is up here tell you. Here it is: The people who are spending all their time, it seems, starting threads like this or derailing serious ones devoting all the time they are devoting to futilely making a nonexistent case to get read up on this; understand what is happening; and stop obstructing science and join the chorus yelling for the mainstream to get off its collective duff and get educated. THAT would be EPOCHAL. And I am not kidding (unlike the OP, whose self-torture I just feel I am abetting, and trying to stop but it's like candy, sorry, I'm on the 12-step).
Rockape Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 This stuff you are doing reads too much like self-torture Since evidently they are reading your posts, I would agree. 1
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 Well, it's not torturing the thoughtful people here, the ones I don't have on the big I. The ones I have, you know, *discussions* with, thoughtful discourses into human nature, evidence, and the natural world. Since I do lift the lid off the big I to bash them occasionally, one could say I'm abetting it. But they don't have to read it, do they.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 6, 2015 Posted June 6, 2015 OK, gang. Purpose of the thread: a bold new approach to bigfoot research. You wanted a real one. So let somebody who knows what is up here tell you. Here it is: The people who are spending all their time, it seems, starting threads like this or derailing serious ones devoting all the time they are devoting to futilely making a nonexistent case to get read up on this; understand what is happening; and stop obstructing science and join the chorus yelling for the mainstream to get off its collective duff and get educated. THAT would be EPOCHAL. And I am not kidding (unlike the OP, whose self-torture I just feel I am abetting, and trying to stop but it's like candy, sorry, I'm on the 12-step). First of all the heavy hitters are in the payed membership section. Whatever a few rogue posters may put up here isn't going to be having a material effect on the matter one way or the other. There is also the reoccurring notion that skeptics/non believers remain unread and uneducated in the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a person who has read the books and seen the photos, movies and videos I know the tale of the modern bigfoot interest. Hell I visited the Iceman in 1972 every day it was on display near my job. And yet the "seasoned" folks who were there in the beginning are said to be ignorant of the matter. Then there is getting better up to present speed that presents a few problems. After posting a thread devoted to best evidence one of chief proponents of having great evidence balks because they are afraid of ridicule. Well if you have the goods and you have a bullet proof certainty that the goods are beyond reproach what are you afraid of? An old timer like me who doesn't know anything?
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 7, 2015 Author Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) This thread has proven its own point; water finds its level no matter how low the table is Edited June 7, 2015 by Squatchy McSquatch
Guest DWA Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) I wish I knew what they were saying. But back to the OP. What are we getting from bigfoot skeptics? Nothing but nonsense that has been debunked 438 ways to Sunday. Wouldn't the "bold new approach" be: HEY SCIENTISTS!!! GET INVOLVED HERE AND TELL ME WHO'S RIGHT!!!!!! Edited June 8, 2015 by DWA
guyzonthropus Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 ^ This is why we can't have nice things. I had a big screen tv until the skeptics came through... "Just sightings?" "Well i ve watched it a number of times at close range, it was huge!" "Any irrefutable evidence?" "I found a power cord that i cant tie to any known appliance" "But you never saw it actually with the bigscreen?" "Well.....no...." "Anything else unusual?" "Yeah..right before the first sighting, we found a large cardboard nest out back by the truck" 1
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Well as the man says, proof is a concept scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting. All the time, we accept things based on eyewitness testimony. "Coffee shop on this block?" Not quite, but, two blocks this way, hang a right, two doors down. "Brad stopped by." Really, what's up with him? "Saw a buck this morning." I've never seen one here; huh! "Milk's in the fridge." Were it not for eyewitness testimony none of us could get through a day. And all of a sudden, when thousands of people are seeing something and giving consistent descriptions of a consistent kind of animal they've never encountered in the wild, unless this is one...and FINDING ITS TRACKS...all of a sudden, everybody's lying hoaxing and who we gonna trust? Scientists who've never been there...or their lyin' eyes? Dawkins is right. Scientists are to blame for this. Science has traditionally relied on eyewitness testimony. Even your thesis presentation isn't gone over in detail by the committee, to the extent of repeating every single observation you made! They largely trust you to be truthful; they are looking for holes in your procedure and conclusions as presented, and they are not looking beyond the presentation. If there are no holes, congratulations, Ph.D! (Why most science fraud isn't discovered until well after the fact.) As I like to put it, science is trusting eyewitnesses who have the appropriate degrees. (And if you disagree with me because your thesis wasn't like that, you're wrong. I don't believe you. I wasn't there and I know how it was.) Science trusts. It doesn't deny or "debunk" or rigorously question your stinkin' lyin' eyes. All it does is determine whether other evidence says, search on this, and proceeds accordingly. All that crap is what "scientists" - who misunderstand and mistrust science - do. Edited June 9, 2015 by DWA
Recommended Posts