Jump to content

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

Guest Crowlogic

By Guest Crowlogic
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

ThePhaige Yowie

ThePhaige

Posted
Posted (edited)

^Did you get that from a fortune cookie?

If there is any fortune to be gained for you within my statement ,other than perhaps, (it makes no sense to you) in order for you to take the time to make your post,then lets say....sure whatever RF...lol or I would have put in quotes at the end "whille in bed" :)

Edited by ThePhaige
Guest Crowlogic

Guest Crowlogic

Posted
Posted (edited)

Put another way:  the media follow trash, they always have, always will...and why would anyone think this field would be any different?

 

It does cause chuckles, this presumption that bigfoot skeptics have that we should be simply ditching people demonstrably practicing science to...follow...them....um, why again...?

 

It's the focus on The Latest Thing.  The latest piece of trash.  The Headliners.  Rogue is asking me whether I think Dr. Squatch is legit.  I have no idea who Dr. Squatch is ...and am pretty convinced that the more one knows about him...the less one knows about this.

Dr Squatch is as legitimate as the next guy, and he knows how to read blue bag bigfoot code!  

What makes you think I 'believe' any of that? Anyone can make anything up. Isn't that what you have been arguing?

If you believe in bigfoot you will believe in anything.  How's that for starters?

Most people claim they want to see evidence or proof, when they really mean they want to rub their own face in a corpse. They momentarily convince themselves that some evidence might exist that would be a suitable substitute for a corpse, then when they see that evidence, their cynical side convinces them it must be a clever hoax. It's a sad cycle.

 

BTW.....This mystery is much older than 50 years.

We all know the bigfoot mystery is more than 50 years old.  The thread is concerning the 50 years of the modern era.  But sure throw in the entire history and the lack of proof becomes even more disconcerting.  Hey how bout that fossil record?

Edited by Crowlogic
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Lately I've stated that we've been chopping away at the bigfoot question for a half century now.  The earlier epoch is not really significant since there are no living memories to reference about it.  Yet a hlf century is a significant block of time in any pursuit.  Here is just such an article concerning this time span,  I'm not alone in appreciating the time span.

 

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigfoot_at_50_evaluating_a_half-century_of_bigfoot_evidence

 

 

 

 

 

Epochs are defined as distinctive time periods. There were several important distinctive time periods throughout history but the Victorian age was just one and that before the half century mark. What you consider significantly distinctive may differ from my idea of important time periods.  â€œThe earlier epoch is not really significant since there are no living memories to reference about it.† To ignore this important point is tantamount to attempting to rewrite history for the sake of treating all peoples and experiences throughout history as insignificant except for your own.

 

Earlier epochs are important because without comprehensive understanding of earlier history we couldn’t be discussing this thread topic now could we?

 

Nobody here on earth was born with all knowing universal and celestial knowledge and understanding. It was imparted to each of us through lessons and teachings by somebody taught from literature and narratives of some degree. Literature as in all forms of communication and arts is a media through which all things are living entities and written record just as communal oral story telling was before literature was used to convey messages of importance.  So how can anyone declare there are no living memories about Bigfoot but for the past 50 years when we know that is absolutely untrue?

 

Come on Crow, you don't believe that do you? You're better than that my friend.

Edited by Gumshoeye
Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Please don't tell me that reports that resound with utter authenticity against today's encounters mean nothing because it makes your nice neat point nicer and neater.  Don't even try that.

 

Bigfoot skeptics lean way too hard on "this started with Bluff Creek."  This started before white people got here.  Reality can be that way.

WSA Yeti

WSA

Posted
Posted

Bodhi...if the curiosity you describe only leads you to conclude all the evidence is not real, that is not much curiosity at all. Neither is it exactly rigorous. Explain it.  Comprehensively. No hand waving or starting with the premise of, "this is not real..." permitted.  If you can't, you are wrong, and the question remains unresolved. 

 

 Simple as that.

 

THAT is the kind of curiosity I refer to. Yours is the most anemic kind. It allows you to wonder about an answer, but leaves you to sit on the sidelines and put down a marker to  smugly conclude  that every day that passes without that answer is meaningful. It isn't. Nor are years and even multiple decades. If it is all the energy you can summon....again...we will not be poorer for your departure.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted (edited)

Bodhi...if the curiosity you describe only leads you to conclude all the evidence is not real, that is not much curiosity at all. Neither is it exactly rigorous. Explain it.  Comprehensively. No hand waving or starting with the premise of, "this is not real..." permitted.  If you can't, you are wrong, and the question remains unresolved. 

 

 Simple as that.

 

THAT is the kind of curiosity I refer to. Yours is the most anemic kind. It allows you to wonder about an answer, but leaves you to sit on the sidelines and put down a marker to  smugly conclude  that every day that passes without that answer is meaningful. It isn't. Nor are years and even multiple decades. If it is all the energy you can summon....again...we will not be poorer for your departure.

 

This.  Fifteen posts is too much to waste, with that Bodhitude.

 

WSA and I have tons of posts.  But we have tons to talk about.  There's the mountain of evidence.  Then there is the most peculiar mindset that proponents have to contend with, maybe the strangest I have ever seen in people otherwise deemed normal by the society.

And more on this "Half Century Mark":

 

In 1871, the New York Times published an editorial demanding that the "Wild Man" mystery be resolved.  That's how many reports there had already been by then.

 

It does no good to pretend this stems from a media event in the 1950s.  It's been going on long as we Europeans have been here.  Native cultures assure us it's been going on far longer than that.  And you are telling me exactly what about their assertion, hmmmm?  They say nothing about this animal that differs from what they say about the animals we recognize.

 

So more like Ten Century Or More Mark, Crow.

Edited by DWA
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Bodhi...if the curiosity you describe only leads you to conclude all the evidence is not real, that is not much curiosity at all. Neither is it exactly rigorous. Explain it.  Comprehensively. No hand waving or starting with the premise of, "this is not real..." permitted.  If you can't, you are wrong, and the question remains unresolved. 

 

 Simple as that.

 

THAT is the kind of curiosity I refer to. Yours is the most anemic kind. It allows you to wonder about an answer, but leaves you to sit on the sidelines and put down a marker to  smugly conclude  that every day that passes without that answer is meaningful. It isn't. Nor are years and even multiple decades. If it is all the energy you can summon....again...we will not be poorer for your departure.

 

I agree and well said WSA.  I thought I was being courteous and amiable, and I considered sharing that insight with him but decided against it.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Not only that, but:

 

1) There are primates in the NA fossil record; there are primates in CA and SA; ...and there are hairy hominoid reports from both of the latter as well as NA.

2) If any kind of primate exists in a continent's fossil record...others are likely to be found.

 

It's an intellectually vacant stance to think anything else but that the fossil record, and current primate assemblages, boost the case for sasquatch.

Bodhi Yowie

Bodhi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Bodhi...if the curiosity you describe only leads you to conclude all the evidence is not real, that is not much curiosity at all. Neither is it exactly rigorous. Explain it.  Comprehensively. No hand waving or starting with the premise of, "this is not real..." permitted.  If you can't, you are wrong, and the question remains unresolved. 

 

 Simple as that.

 

THAT is the kind of curiosity I refer to. Yours is the most anemic kind. It allows you to wonder about an answer, but leaves you to sit on the sidelines and put down a marker to  smugly conclude  that every day that passes without that answer is meaningful. It isn't. Nor are years and even multiple decades. If it is all the energy you can summon....again...we will not be poorer for your departure.

Evidence? No; none of what you refer to as evidence is convincing to me; it's interesting but it is far, far from convincing. You keep personalizing this as though I'm some outlyer refusing to acknowledge an obvious truth. The objective truth is that science does not accept that this animal is real; I am not aware of any accredited university/institution funding any research or expedition looking for sasquatch. Amazingly enough, all of those sightings reports have not moved a single institute/university to start scouting the woods for glowing eyed, infrasound casting,12 foot tall hominids which like pancakes. If I strike you as not intellectually curious at least I'm in good company.

 

I've stated, repeatedly, that there is a possibility that the creature exists but that the probability is very low because of the paucity of evidence. It's interesting possibility it is just not likely and questioning believers as to why the creature hasn't been holotyped 50 years post PGF is valid. Asking why a believer how these things somehow know how to avoid game cameras, to hide scat, to bury their dead, to live near human habitation and leave no physical trace, etc is valid.

So, again, if it is my intellectual curiousity which you find lacking or anemic I'm quite alright with that. I prefer the Dr. Todd Disotell camp to the Dr. Jeff Meldrum fringe any day.

 

Disotell says it succinctly, "show me evidence"; to quote you "Simple as that".

Edited by Bodhi
Bodhi Yowie

Bodhi

Posted
Posted

 

Probably in those mounds found across America. You think Lincoln just believed?

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/04/searching-for-lost-giants_n_6097272.html

Check the byline: Lee Spiegel

 

The fella' is a regular on Coast to Coast and other paranormal shows. Here's the HuffPost archive of his work; http://leespiegel.com/

 

Thanks for the article on Giants, I actually think I heard him talking about this on C2C last year, always love how amped up he gets when he's being interviewed.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

Evidence? No; none of what you refer to as evidence is convincing to me; it's interesting but it is far, far from convincing.

 

To someone who is showing this level of intellectual engagement, well, who cares. 

 

You keep personalizing this as though I'm some outlyer refusing to acknowledge an obvious truth.

 

Nobody is personalizing anything.  This is simply a person refusing to acknowledge a truth that, inobvious though it might be to a certain level of intellectual engagement, is no less true.  This is what happens when bigfoot skeptics are told to put up or shut up, to get engaged in the topic or go debunk Uri Geller ferpetesake.   They get all persecution complex-y, and think that a bloodless dissection of their intellectual lack of engagement is a personal attack.  One might better engage oneself building one's case...but they don't have one, do they.  OH Snap!

 

The objective truth is that science does not accept that this animal is real; I am not aware of any accredited university/institution funding any research or expedition looking for sasquatch.

 

A certain level of intellectual engagement, which will consider this persecution, pretends not to see all the ways the mainstream's lack of engagement has been exposed decisively and humiliatingly on this topic.

 

Amazingly enough, all of those sightings reports have not moved a single institute/university to start scouting the woods for glowing eyed, infrasound casting,12 foot tall hominids which like pancakes. If I strike you as not intellectually curious at least I'm in good company.

 

No he's not.  He's one of those lumpers who can't separate true believer [poopies] from scientific-proponent shinola, and it's his intellectual loss...as it is that of his "scientist" buddies.

 

I've stated, repeatedly, that there is a possibility that the creature exists but that the probability is very low because of the paucity of evidence.

 

Which gets it 180 degrees wrong, and are we surprised.

 

So, again, if it is my intellectual curiousity which you find lacking or anemic I'm quite alright with that. I prefer the Dr. Todd Disotell camp butt-from-hole-in-ground to the Dr. Jeff Meldrum fringe scientific appropach any day.  There, fixed.  You can tell who's not done his reading here.

 

Disotell says it succinctly, "show me evidence"; to quote you "Simple as that".

 

You Too Can Sound Smart If You Don't Read And Are Preaching To Those Who Won't!

WSA Yeti

WSA

Posted
Posted

Bodhi, my impression of most who post things such as that is they couldn't discern good evidence if it arrived in a certified letter.  You're going to have to try a good bit harder, because nobody is going to spoon feed the hungry around here. Whining about  a paucity of evidence just signals confusion to me.  It is personal because it is no more impersonal than not twigging algebra.  Consider that if you don't "get" it, then this might mean you don't. Think some more.

Guest DWA

Guest DWA

Posted
Posted

WSA:  we're piling on.  His feelings are getting hurt.  See, if ignorance of evidence posing as arrogance gets called here, tears will flow.  We should really understand this by now.

 

The sheer double-backflips with a two-and-a-half-lutz full layout takeoff followed by nose landing...over what?  One would think they could have some fun with this, but, well, clearly not.


They get all persecution complex-y, and think that a bloodless dissection sincere effort to point out to them, in a friendly effort-to-engage way, of their intellectual lack of engagement is a personal attack. 

 

Fixed to reflect WSA's actual approach.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...