A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

i just got done watching "the honest liar" on netflix about the life of James Randi.

 

 

Small world. My girlfriend watched that film the other night.

 

Yeah I must be lucky being around the right people. Even stranger as I'm not in the USA or Canada.

 

I'm glad to hear that some others haven't encountered the mockery either.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest Crowlogic]

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Sorry. Nor do I really care.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say your "mission" (that YOU self admitted in post #35 was your hope) is dark and subversive. I merely asked you a question how it was working out for you seeing as you repeatedly kept asking others how did they do with proving bigfoot to science today, and the day before, and the day before that ad nauseam. Why is it ok for you to ask questions but not for others to ask you questions?.

 

By the way I can't ban anyone. I'm not admin nor even a mod so your point is bizarre to me. I'd like you to stay. You are doing a great job of putting your foot in it the more you hang around.

I put the word mission in quotes since you implied that to you I'm on a mission.  I didn't say for you to directly ban me.  But you can marshal the agreeing members to have me banned since there seem to be enough heavy hitters unhappy with my presence these days.    

 

Consider this, supposing I have swayed some people to reject bigfoot and suppose I answered your question beyond myself.  Why should other members/people be dragged into the fray?  But so what if a few more people understand the game, so what if a few less bigfoot tee shirts are purchased.

 

Lastly asking those who are pontificating bigfoot's reality and waving since around whether they've delivered the beast to the thing they are waving around is a perfect logical and valid question.  I promise you this much that when the morning edition of the New York Times hits the worldwide newsstands that bigfoot has been confirmed will not be it's headline or even a byline.  Same goes for the next issues of Smithsonian, National Geographic, Popular Science, and Scientific American. Say what you like but there's a very good reason for this and we don't need conspiracies to make it so.  It's what the reality side of history looks like.

Crowlogic:   "Why not have me banned from the forum,  it's that easy just do it."    Crowlogic,  are you challenging the authority of the moderators or perhaps you are tired of arguing.?      If that stance is not indicative of trolling, I have no idea what trolling is. 

No the only thing I'm challenging here is the erroneous notion of bigfoot.  There is no real argument.  There is a contingent of people who subscribe to the idea that there is an unknown something out there and there is a very much larger contingent of people who subscribe to the idea that there is not.  Both can't be right.  Now if the belief contingent wins whatever argument any of this presents so what?  Being right in matters of bigfoot is as I've said before tantamount to being Lord Of The Flies.

[Guest DWA]

Maybe this thread has hit on a commonality.      I have told some people about my encounters and I get a polite response and curious questions in response.      The only person I personally know that has derided me, all but accused me of being nuts, is a neighbor with a Masters Degree in biology.       Is formal education just education or is part of it being brain washed to group think?

Heh.  Heh. Heh.

 

When one thinks about it, one realizes:  Science degrees train one to plow the narrow deep furrow of the *canon* of the science, not hie off in Challenging New Directions (CND).  Every time one of them tells me all the CND going on in his science, I reply:  that all may be cool stuff, but it ain't CND.  Just plowing that furrow, an inch farther, an inch deeper, an inch at a time, science has done very very cool stuff, which none of us are knocking here.  All those CND scientists point out as the "wonder" with which who needs this sasquatch crap?, isn't really anything but plowing that furrow.  Which yeah, it is a VERY VERY cool world and universe we live in.  So just plowing that furrow gets a lot of wonder done.  Not arguing that.

 

Think of the business world.  All those suit-and-tie guys grind through their Ph.Ds and MBAs ...to work for some dude in t-shirt cutoffs and sandals who one day got an insight...and took off on a radical CND.  Same thing happens in the scientific mainstream.  The Einsteins and Nobels?  They're your CND.  All else?  Plowing that furrow, an inch farther an inch deeper.  Which will yield nice looking crops, in this very VERY VERY cool world and universe we live in.  But don't mistake it for CND.

 

Bigfoot?  CND, big time.  No shred of canon tells us to expect this.  But evidence says it's happening.  A few radicals are chasing the evidence.  And they are the guys/gals your big-whoop Masters Degree in biology wind up following, revering, and working for.

[Cotter]

 There is a contingent of people who subscribe to the idea that there is an unknown something out there and there is a very much larger contingent of people who subscribe to the idea that there is not.  Both can't be right.  

 

Absolutely, but it doesn't make the larger group right.

 

There are many examples showing the shortcomings of this type of approach to 'what is real'.

[Guest DWA]

^^^In fact, the fatal shortcomings of this type of approach to 'what is real' are one of the most consistent, oft-repeated lessons of the history of science.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Absolutely, but it doesn't make the larger group right.

 

There are many examples showing the shortcomings of this type of approach to 'what is real'.

What makes the larger group right is the perpetual failure of the smaller group in proving what they are basing a belief in.  We can argue proof and evidence until the cows come home but at the end of the day there are certain requisites of proof that bigfoot believers/researchers perpetually fail to deliver.  

[Guest DWA]

Um, wrong.  Talking about another oft-repeated lesson of the history of science.  Crow.  PLEASE, LIKE, READ SOMETHING.  This is getting bad.

[Cotter]

What makes the larger group right is the perpetual failure of the smaller group in proving what they are basing a belief in.  We can argue proof and evidence until the cows come home but at the end of the day there are certain requisites of proof that bigfoot believers/researchers perpetually fail to deliver.  

 

Well, I would say there is no time limit to establish proof, so at this point, neither group is 'right'.

[Guest DWA]

Right.  Maybe just a weetad harder to get for people who missed the entire point of the discussion long ago.

Edited July 30, 2015 by DWA

[WSA]

Well...it seems to be coming into focus better all the time. We now are informed Crowlogic thinks math is what controls on the point of if BF lives or not. I would have a very hard time making up stuff like that. Explains buckets.

[Guest DWA]

Crow is a tougher sell for me than sasquatch, gotta toss that one in there.

[Branco]

You can consider your own experiences however you like. Without proof, it's just a campfire story to everyone else.

No Sir, it's not a camp fire story to everyone else. If he/she and the tens of thousands of others who have seen the things - some more than once and more one at a time - were sworn and placed on the witness stand in a judicial hearing, their testimonies would convince a judge or jury that there would be a credible reason to believe the creatures exist. Such a hearing could be obtained if requested under specific circumstances and for for appropriate reasons.

The good part would be that skeptics, nay-sayers and such would not be able spout off their ill-founded opinions to disrupt such a hearing as they continually do on this and other forums. The would have absolutely no standing in such a hearing. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Branco

[Bodhi]

"Preventing people from succumbing to belief"  is trying to control other people.    Notice the use of the word "preventing".    The puzzle here is the personal motivation to do that.    I could care less what people think or believe.    I do care when someone wants to control what I or others think or believe.   Is the end game of that turning in your neighbors for belief in BF,  re-education camps,  thought control,   shock treatments to force witnesses to recant their sightings?     Where does that kind of thinking lead? 

This and the posts above it by Neanderfoot show how little has actually been accomplished since the PGF. The thread draws a lot of traffic but NO evidence. I'm bummed about the lack of evidence but I really shocked that adherents cannot admit the lack of evidence. Instead it's a bash session on critical thinking and a "rah-rah", "we're the special people" echo chamber.

 

Other than Norseman the believers in this thread have contributed very, very little in terms of constructive content and we're 61 pages deep at this point.

 

The topic is Where are we 50 years post patty. That's the topic. This other nonsense is really just cyber bullying of skeptics for pointing out that 50 years post patty all the casts,trackways,thrown rocks, trail cam photos, etc have led to exactly nowhere. It took science less time, from the first report in Europe till type-specimen, than it's been since the PGF. The gorilla specimen was the 1800's, in the african jungle for goodness sakes. Less time than we've waited since patty. And sasquatch, if reports are to be believed, runs across roads on a regular basis. Heck there's some guy on this site who was implying that he heard a sasquatch from his backyard recently. These things LOVE being near humans and yet not a since hair or piece of scat in 50 years.

 

IMO, if you aren't skeptical about this topic based on those results; you....are....unhinged.

[Guest DWA]

You can consider your own experiences however you like. Without proof, it's just a campfire story to everyone else.

I like this "everyone else."  What are the thousands of people who have seen them to you?  Cardboard cutouts?  You don't read the reports, that's clear (and don't say you have 'coz that makes you look worse).  If I had to take a bet on what scientists would say, off the record and not for attribution...you'd probably be stunned.  A scientist wouldn't, though.

 

I am taking the evidence and the scientists who vouch for it over (1) people who call themselves "scientists" but could not advertise more baldly that when it comes to this they aren't and (2) people called Nakani who could not advertise more baldly that I can lump him with them.

[Bodhi]

Absolutely, but it doesn't make the larger group right.

 

There are many examples showing the shortcomings of this type of approach to 'what is real'.

fine Cotter. The topic of the thread is where are we 50 years post patty. So, where are we. Is there a research group which you feel has a snowballs chance in heck of finding a single piece of trace evidence?