A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Never mind continuing the "what is today will be tomorrow" argument long after it's been shot down for him times beyond counting.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Never mind continuing the "what is today will be tomorrow" argument long after it's been shot down for him times beyond counting.

Well here's one you can take to the bank On July 7 2016 bigfoot will be as unproven to exist as it is on July 7 2015.  When 2016 arrives and you're empty handed remember this post.  So far not a single skeptic or unbeliever has been shot down, not one.

[Guest DWA]

Like, wow, that.

 

I won't remember that post beyond *today.*  If the situation hasn't changed by 2020, *the only logical thing for a person taking the scientific approach to think* is what I think.

[Guest DWA]

Crow, you got something really serious going on here that needs fixing stat.  It's obvious that you are really trying hard to jinx bigfoot into being.  (1) it doesn't work and (2) it isn't necessary.

Edited July 7, 2015 by DWA

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

Science is a discipline.  Major fly in bigfoot ointment is most "researchers" enter the field already believing.  You do a marvelous job of waving the science flag yet you bring nothing to the table supported by your "science".  However maybe this will help you.

 

 

 

 

There's an error in this chart or it needs more explaining. If the hypothesis is false or partially true, rethinking the hypothesis might not be necessary. More realistically, you would need to "Think. Try again!" at the " test with experiment" level and exhaust that before going back to the hypothesis..

 

For example, my hypothesis is that I can extract gold from quartz  using store-bought vinegar. I devise a method and I do tests. My results are that I can't do it using store bought vinegar. Even though my hypothesis didn't pan out, the results are pertinent. What I would need to "Think. Try again" about is my methodology, not necessarily the hypothesis.

Edited July 7, 2015 by ChasingRabbits

[Guest Crowlogic]

You missed his point.    You do not believe in BF so have chosen not to do field work to test the hypothesis of existence of BF.     He has tested the hypothesis of existence and found evidence to his own satisfaction.    

 

Not a single molecule of the said creature has ever been brought in?    There sure are a lot of molecules in hair samples that did not test out to be some known animal.   You are aware of them right?  

This is beginning to get moronic.  I used to believe in bigfoot.  I believed in bigfoot from 1967 until 2013.  I read everything available from 1967 until the publishing of Legend Meets Science.  I watched every documetary I was aware of from 1967 through Legend meets Science.  I also spent time in the field (remote regions where bigfoot activity gets reported ) as a trained observer doing real scientific work and you have the gall to say I haven't investigated the issue.  Friend I was aware of bigfoot when you were still in diapers.  But I woke up and reason won the day.  Personally I could care less what you invest your energies in.  Now that said you're still whining about your profile photo, well excuse  me if the fake Dr Squatch posted looked a bit like your wooden bigfoot face.  What the %$#@ are you so paranoid about?  Oh you're a bigfoot researcher that explains it.

There's an error in this chart or it needs more explaining. If the hypothesis is false or partially true, rethinking the hypothesis might not be necessary. More realistically, you would need to "Think. Try again!" at the " test with experiment" level and exhaust that before going back to the hypothesis..

 

For example, my hypothesis is that I can extract gold from quartz  using store-bought vinegar. I devise a method and I do tests. My results are that I can't do it using store bought vinegar. Even though my hypothesis didn't pan out, the results are pertinent. What I would need to "Think. Try again" about is my methodology, not necessarily the hypothesis.

In the case of bigfoot the method always ends in nothing.  Sure retest that hog hair 10,000 times it'll still be hog hair.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

As you say, Crow, science is a discipline. 

 

Some of us understand it.  Might want to get started on that yourself.

[ShadowBorn]

Well here's one you can take to the bank On July 7 2016 bigfoot will be as unproven to exist as it is on July 7 2015.  When 2016 arrives and you're empty handed remember this post.  So far not a single skeptic or unbeliever has been shot down, not one.

Crowlogic

You never know that maybe this might be the year I might choose to bag one of these boogers. I have thought about it for the past two years ,contemplating it while sitting in a tree. A nice well placed big ole 2" sharp  G5 arrow nice and silent, you will not have to worry any more. Won't have to worry cause the darn thing will not feel a thing and nothing is going hear my bow.

 

What was that man that took down a 700 lbs or more Kodak bear  ten yards  away from the bear . Well cannot be no different and as far as I know there no laws here against it where I live since it does not exist. Happy happy happy, It will be like Ren and Stimpy and when Ren has that foot ball helmet on and he is hitting himself in the head. Well this is how I feel , that this should have been done long time ago.

[Martin]

Crowlogic

You never know that maybe this might be the year I might choose to bag one of these boogers. I have thought about it for the past two years ,contemplating it while sitting in a tree. A nice well placed big ole 2" sharp  G5 arrow nice and silent, you will not have to worry any more. Won't have to worry cause the darn thing will not feel a thing and nothing is going hear my bow.

 

What was that man that took down a 700 lbs or more Kodak bear  ten yards  away from the bear . Well cannot be no different and as far as I know there no laws here against it where I live since it does not exist. Happy happy happy, It will be like Ren and Stimpy and when Ren has that foot ball helmet on and he is hitting himself in the head. Well this is how I feel , that this should have been done long time ago.

 

Don't stress yourself.

 

Just a few clear HD pictures will suffice for now.

[Guest DWA]

No they won't.  A movie didn't, a movie that is very clear, a movie that if that were one of your relatives you'd know which one.

 

(It might be.  I mean "relative" as human genealogists use the term.)

 

If that movie didn't do it, I am now convinced, nothing short of a corpse will.  Provided, of course, that denialists don't burn the corpse to ashes and deny it all happened.

 

(Yes.  It's that bad.)

Edited July 7, 2015 by DWA

[Martin]

It would work for me.

 

Just one or two, in focus, HD, high quality photo/s.

 

I must have missed the movie.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Martin

[beerhunter]

Bigfootism:  A belief in a bipedal primate cryptoid in which  the believers construct and maintain the means for it's existence in light of ever increasing odds against it existence.

Looks like your saying fabricating things and lying - so I it appears to be derogatory in nature especially to those who don't do those things. One should try to avoid making sweeping generalizations about people or groups of people especially when those folks are trying to prove something you disagree with - give it more time and enjoy the ride.

[WSA]

@ Martin>>>>Boy did you. The things you read around here defy belief.

[Martin]

@ Martin>>>>Boy did you. The things you read around here defy belief.

 

You are a smart guy WSA..

 

It defies belief that you would be flabbergasted that outside of this microscopic community no one takes the PGF as more quasi focused mess of a film. 

 

People look at the PGF and say "whatever". 

 

It maybe real but it's not good enough end of story.

 

Even proponents can't agree on her height, weight or even the shape of her head.

 

One clear in focus high resolution picture shouldn't be that hard. 

Edited July 7, 2015 by Martin

[Guest DWA]

^^^All that's pretty much wrong.  But the class will wait for you to catch up.  Patty's genuine.  Science says so.  Crack a book.  Or something.