WSA Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) ^^^^^You crack me up. Like, what, is there some kind of confirmation deadline I've not been made privy to? You might want to have that need looked at. It has got you all bollixed up. Edited June 17, 2015 by WSA
Guest WesT Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 May I suggest you "tweak" your request for evidence is a manner that doesn't lead to the usual circular arguments.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 ^^^^^You crack me up. Like, what, is there some kind of confirmation deadline I've not been made privy to? You might want to have that need looked at. It has got you all bollixed up. Actually after half century of nothing it's all pretty funny. But the difference is that the believers are running a fools errand. A half century of nothing yes it is pretty funny.
Guest WesT Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'll take that as you're not really interested in seeing any potential evidence of something unknown.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) The evidence for Bigfoot is there for those who are willing to study it. The PGF, the geographical patterns across sightings and hair evidence are all there. It's all very easy to dismiss though if you have some sort of bias against Bigfoot like how most Bigfoot ex-proponents have. Edited June 17, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 I'll take that as you're not really interested in seeing any potential evidence of something unknown. I looked at the evidence for nearly 5 decades.
Cotter Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 Crow - have you checked out the new bones thread?I'll share the link. Backdooring it here, cool idea. https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&wdo=2&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) The evidence for Bigfoot is there for those who are willing to study it. The PGF, the geographical patterns across sightings and hair evidence are all there. It's all very easy to dismiss though if you have some sort of bias against Bigfoot like how most Bigfoot ex-proponents have. It's pointless carry on. Crow - have you checked out the new bones thread? I'll share the link. Backdooring it here, cool idea. https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=25BBCABF2DE517FF!108&ithint=file%2cpdf&app=WordPdf&wdo=2&authkey=!AOLzbmAVbvcVkIM I've already read it. Edited June 17, 2015 by Crowlogic
MarkGlasgow Posted June 17, 2015 Posted June 17, 2015 There is evidence of ghosts too but how good is the evidence? The era of graphs and sighting plotting is over;. There is not a single instance of a person following the graphs and patterns that's ever been able to have it result in being in the right place at the right time. A few blurry photos a few plaster casts and mystery hair (usually known animal) is not the foundation to build a case for this animal. It's an old game and a tired one at that. You may want to throw in the thousands of sighting reports. There are databases jam packed with them. Of course these are all from liars and folks who can't tell a bear from their big toe. No disrespect Crow but frankly I don't give to cents if you have come to the conclusion that BF doesn't exist. Join the queue my friend. Indeed you are just another in a long line of skeptics who find themselves on here going over the same old ground. There's no value in trying to engage you in debate. Hopefully the kudos you receive from fellow 'critical thinkers' will make the time you waste here worthwhile.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 You may want to throw in the thousands of sighting reports. There are databases jam packed with them. Of course these are all from liars and folks who can't tell a bear from their big toe. No disrespect Crow but frankly I don't give to cents if you have come to the conclusion that BF doesn't exist. Join the queue my friend. Indeed you are just another in a long line of skeptics who find themselves on here going over the same old ground. There's no value in trying to engage you in debate. Hopefully the kudos you receive from fellow 'critical thinkers' will make the time you waste here worthwhile. I am as aware of the sightings and reports as you or any other proponent is. I've read and followed hundreds over the years. What the confirmed believer does is to accept the bulk of the reportage as factual. For ages I labored under the weight of those thousands of reports but eventually the dead end that each and every report resulted in gave pause to consider that perhaps something else is in play. I've already elucidated on one example of a reportage made to me about something that was clearly in error. The picture in it's entirety is what I consider. Do any or all of the sightings ever result in a repeatable or predictable result? Are any of the films, photos and videos ever of such overwhelming quality that they positively broadcast reality? Has any of the hard evidence ever been of the quality that it answered more questions than it created? The answer is no. Everything in bigfooting has added up to a question mark at best or an out and out negative. Not a very promising batting average after being at bat for half a century. As for the human element well no I think a fair number of bigfoot sightings are tall tales, another fair number are honest error a few are the observations made by minds predisposed to seeing these things. At the end of the day people do lie, people do make up stories, people do see things that aren't there and people do try and articulate something they may have seen. You can find each and every one of those types of people right within the bigfoot community. Once belief turns to unbelief the comforting paradigms that keep the hopeful believer going begin to ring hollow and what rings real demands better.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 Thoughts on the content? It wavers little from the supposition that the bones have been manipulated by an unknown hominid. I would like it to include examples of other predictor marks on similar bones as well as examples of bone stacking done in the wild by other animals or if that does not exist in nature. The paper never wanders far from the original premise. Major omission is not including photo of the crushed Elk skull. The cast print referred to as hominid is too nondescript to call a print as such. Very likely there are naturalists that could furnish examples of bones that known animals have acted upon with like results. But it's a good read well done and a breath of fresh air away from gifting piles, stick structures knocks and tree breaks.
Guest DWA Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 I'm trying to imagine what could motivate coming to a place like this over, and over, and over; being told to get up to speed...and still, 1,679 posts later, not having made any efforts to even attempt to do so. There he is in the last sentence still talking about belief and unbelief...as if any of us others are. Not having any idea how to use evidence to reach conclusions (as NAWAC is, and most of them could tell Crow he's wasting his time from personal sightings). Can't.
roguefooter Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 ^Probably the same thing that motivates you to keep rinsing and repeating about scientists and skeptics. They do make a good drinking game- I'll give you that. 1
Recommended Posts