Show Your Best Evidence If You Please.

[WSA]

I wouldn't so much classify it as arrogant, but the presumption that anyone would share anything substantive with somebody proudly sporting a know-nothing stripe on the sleeve is, well, maybe delusional? (Sort of has a "What a good boy am I.." kind of vibe to it.)  Proves, exactly what, again? I'm amused, but completely baffled by the whole exercise too.

[Guest DWA]

And, actually, Crow, no, it's not arrogance.  It's reading everything somebody says and realizing it shows that person isn't up to speed.  If you disagree, both politeness and logic demand that you state your reasons, and "I just do" may be cool for you but doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of us.

It does no good to blanket trash thousands of people's experience, for nothing, and then have the, well, lack of perspective to even use the word "arrogance" to categorize anyone else.

The only opinion that counts is the opinion of science, which is something mainstream scientists show unfamiliarity with when it comes to, well, this.  The opinion of science is not mine; it is one I *share* and if you don't share it, you are, objectively, not up to speed, and done.

[SWWASAS]

So much for apologies. I went off half cocked because I had to ask you three times before you finally told me where you got the picture. You responded and did not answer the question twice before you finally said it was from my profile page on your third response to direct questions. If you had answered the first time I asked, or credited the source of the picture in the first place, there would not have been an issue. By not answering initially, it seemed to me that you were either hiding the answer or trying to provoke me (trolling?). Oh by the way, you no longer have my permission to repost or use any picture I post here or anywhere else without my express permission. And you won't be getting that because you should have properly credited the photo source the first time you posted the avatar picture. It is no different than quoting someone without naming the source. A picture is intellectual property too.

So the quality of my observational skills are at question when I notice that picture to the left of this post is the same as you posted in #167? And therefore all BF researchers lack observational skills? Talk about fallacious logic not to mention personal bashing.

Edited June 15, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

I wouldn't so much classify it as arrogant, but the presumption that anyone would share anything substantive with somebody proudly sporting a know-nothing stripe on the sleeve is, well, maybe delusional? (Sort of has a "What a good boy am I.." kind of vibe to it.)  Proves, exactly what, again? I'm amused, but completely baffled by the whole exercise too.

Indeed when dealing with a mutual admiration society desertion is kept at arms length.  Compelling evidence should be able to stand all scrutiny, that's what truth is.  Do skeptics actually have that much power over bigfoot truth?  Is it such a fragile truth that it won't stand the light of day or depth of inquiry?  

And, actually, Crow, no, it's not arrogance.  It's reading everything somebody says and realizing it shows that person isn't up to speed.  If you disagree, both politeness and logic demand that you state your reasons, and "I just do" may be cool for you but doesn't have to mean anything to the rest of us.

It does no good to blanket trash thousands of people's experience, for nothing, and then have the, well, lack of perspective to even use the word "arrogance" to categorize anyone else.

The only opinion that counts is the opinion of science, which is something mainstream scientists show unfamiliarity with when it comes to, well, this.  The opinion of science is not mine; it is one I *share* and if you don't share it, you are, objectively, not up to speed, and done.

You've said a lot but have showed nothing.  Exactly what does up to speed mean?  Buying the NAWAC DVD?  

[Guest DWA]

^^^And that's arrogance.  But when one isn't being taken seriously...well, that's all it is.  I show more in one post than you have in 1,657.

[Guest Crowlogic]

So much for apologies. I went off half cocked because I had to ask you three times before you finally told me where you got the picture. You responded and did not answer the question twice before you finally said it was from my profile page on your third response to direct questions. If you had answered the first time I asked, or credited the source of the picture in the first place, there would not have been an issue. By not answering initially, it seemed to me that you were either hiding the answer or trying to provoke me (trolling?). Oh by the way, you no longer have my permission to repost or use any picture I post here or anywhere else without my express permission. And you won't be getting that because you should have properly credited the photo source the first time you posted the avatar picture. It is no different than quoting someone without naming the source. A picture is intellectual property too.

So the quality of my observational skills are at question when I notice that picture to the left of this post is the same as you posted in #167? And therefore all BF researchers lack observational skills? Talk about fallacious logic not to mention personal bashing.

And I would hope one knows one's avatar when they see it.  

[Guest DWA]

C'mon.  You've been told this enough times.  Have something to talk about, man.

[SWWASAS]

Mutual admiration society? I have personally questioned some of the big names in BF research about their conclusions about cultural artifacts and believe me they don't like it. I seem to be on BFRO's list of persona non-grata. Reports I have made to their data base are not included. I question tree knocking and vocalization activity by humans and many here use those techniques. Some of the first generation of BF researchers refused to speak to each other, recently I heard a story where one hit another in the face. Well known researchers no longer post here, mostly due to skeptics but they had to take the heat from others questioning their interpretations. Most proponents bash "Finding Bigfoot" for one reason or another. Most of us do not like the current trend of trying to make money from BF. The ape camp disagree with the human hybrid camp. There is the pro kill and anti kill groups who disagree. The normal and paranormal groups disagree. Research areas are closely guarded secrets from each other. So it is hardly a mutual admiration society. A more accurate description is a bunch of squabbling camps who rarely agree about anything, other than there is a large unknown to science creature in the woods.

[Guest DWA]

...but count on someone who pays zero attention, well, not to.  

 

It's yet another example of a True Believer in Denial playing that card, over and over, supplying all necessary facts from his own head.  A fascinating study for those inclined, I suppose.  But one gets tired of it quickly if one is here to  discuss the topic.

[Guest]

DWA, on 15 Jun 2015 - 06:30 AM, said:

If you haven't seen one, your opinion doesn't matter

Have you seen one, DWA?

Bazinga!

[Guest DWA]

ONly if one's head hasn't gotten utterly wrapped around this, which appears the case with some.

 

There is one opinion which matters:  that of science.  Which I happen to "share."

 

Now let's see who knows what that means.  I am taking bets.

[MrSkwatch]

ONly if one's head hasn't gotten utterly wrapped around this, which appears the case with some.

 

There is one opinion which matters:  that of science.  Which I happen to "share."

 

Now let's see who knows what that means.  I am taking bets.

 

 Aside from your repeated accusations that some of us are too dumb to interpret what you consider to be evidence, I don't know what any of your posts really mean. Can you direct me to where you have laid out all this evidence that we fail to wrap our heads around?

[Guest DWA]

Like, wha?  That's my job?  No, better idea.  As I have *actually been doing that* for about 8 grand of posts here, why not go back and read them all?  If one cannot be troubled to do that, why not do what I have been saying you need to do to be acquainted with the evidence, hah?  Here are the ingredients.

 

1.  A shard of curiosity about the world.

2.  A reason to, you know, be here, as in:  curiosity about this topic (oddly lacking among bigfoot skeptics, who seem to think they're telling off idiots rather than lecturing their betters).

3.  Reading acumen, and 

4.  Analysis acumen, developed from backcountry time animal time and real-world time; and

5.  A willingness to get off one's high horse and figure stuff out.  Called "science."  Cutting-edge science, that you get to do...only you don't wanna.  Oh. OK.  Spoon-feed not offered at this venue.

 

What I did I did unprompted and unguided by anything but those five things.  And by the time I read Meldrum and Krantz and Bindernagel, my reaction, like every three lines, was "Yes!" and "Precisely!" and "My conclusion, exactly!"  With healthy doses of "Well, I hadn't thought about that, but given my exposure to this, yep, actually, that is worth considering."

 

Nope, done my share.  Time for the rest of you scholars to just do what I did.
 

Or, you can just listen to Crowlogic, to which I have personally decided life is too too short.

Edited June 15, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

 

Or, you can just listen to Crowlogic, for which I have personally decided life is too too short.

Or you can  take everything in bigfootism and add it all up and see if any of it has ever produced a flesh and blood animal.  I imagine that the world is still waiting for that Everest sized mountain of evidence to issue forth  the creature in question.   Life is to short to wait for bigfoot to materialize and you can take that to the bank.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

[sigh]see?