A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest DWA]

Crow:  why do you keep dodging the science in favor of the sideshows?

 

(Hint:  he knows what he's doing.)

[Guest]

That part in quotes is a capsule description of what is interesting about bigfoot skepticism.  Those of us who are having an intellectual discussion about a proven wild animal are equally interested in this.

In post 641 you said Bigfoot was "pretty much proven" and went on to make some funny claims. I corrected these and I hoped you were making progress. Now post 675, Bigfoot is "proven". When you are having an intellectual discussion, you will sound smarter if you don't make unsubstantiated claims. Bigfoot is only proven in your head; the rest of the world, not so much.

[roguefooter]

That part in quotes is a capsule description of what is interesting about bigfoot skepticism.  Those of us who are having an intellectual discussion about a proven wild animal are equally interested in this.

 

When people start referring to Bigfoot as a "proven wild animal" then I would agree to it being fascinating. You are so intent on wanting the reality of Bigfoot that you've literally convinced yourself that it is now proven.

 

To claim that Bigfoot is proven and that science, scientists, and skeptics are all wrong seems almost like reaching the point of desperation. Is there a reason why Bigfoot can't just be a mystery? Or are believers now in need of absolutes like the hardline skeptics?

 

Like I stated before I want Bigfoot to be real as much as the next guy, but I want real evidence that can't be written off as hoaxing or misidentification. Descriptions and reports have been out there and accessible to anyone, making them easy to mimic. This is not solid evidence of anything. The foot castings seem to come in every shape and size imaginable lacking any real consistency.

[Old Dog]

Is it soup yet?  With all the stirring, it must surely be done by now.

[roguefooter]

Soup or dogma? Which would you like?

[Martin]

Absolutely agreed on all points! SWWASP, is the real deal and one individual that I would consider honorable and trustworthy.................

Im not saying Swwasp is not honorable and trustworthy but how would anyone really know?

Way too much of this in bigfootery.

[LeafTalker]

Way too much of WHAT?!?!?

 

As for "how would anyone really know": You know by reading the many hundreds of posts the person has written (1,751 for SWWASP as of this writing). Then, you trust your own gut to process the information you've gotten from the hundreds and hundreds of posts. 

 

That's it. There ain't no more. Did you think there was some magic wand you could wave to decide who to trust????

 

There are no guarantees. You get guarantees with refrigerators and washing machines, not people. 

 

And if you can't tell anything about a person after 1,751 interesting, kind, intelligent, thoughtful posts, well, good luck to you! You're gonna need it.  

[Guest]

Im not saying Swwasp is not honorable and trustworthy but how would anyone really know?

Way too much of this in bigfootery.

 

Honor and integrity are but two of the greatest virtues anyone can bestow on another out of respect and admiration and yet, they are qualities that aren’t easily recognized in an individual unless you (generally speaking) are taught to believe in them.  An individual can be poor in material riches and wealthy in wisdom, honor and integrity and be noble in their deeds.

 

The question how would anyone really know who is honorable and trustworthy? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I came to that conclusion by SWWASP’s actions and deeds and so the point I’m driving in is that if one doesn’t know what makes a person virtuous what does it matter?  Therefore, I am of the opinion that man exemplifies those qualities not easily found in people.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Martin]

^ so just to make sure I understand you correctly......

You met this fellow who posts anonymously on the Internet.... he posts things you agree with..... he does it often and respectfully so you endorse him as honorable and credible.

I understand and sympathize.

I was you 10 years ago.

[Guest]

^ so just to make sure I understand you correctly......

You met this fellow who posts anonymously on the Internet.... he posts things you agree with..... he does it often and respectfully so you endorse him as honorable and credible.

I understand and sympathize.

I was you 10 years ago.

 

You were me 10 years ago??  Really? Well that’s interesting  …J   I've heard it said before that somebody seen somebody that looked like me but never had anyone tell me they were me ... That's a first LOL ...  Okay, show me the science and peer review demonstrating how it is possible for you get inside my mind and eyes at the very moment in time where I was ten years ago that enables you to make such claims ...  Seriously though, it doesn't matter what I think; it matters only what you think and believe and that is the most important contribution anyone can offer to the forum.    

Edited July 13, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

I've never created a single paradigm that allowed for the further existence of bigfoot in light of the constant failure of true proof.  It is all postulated by bigfoot believers.  I'll tell you bigfoot isn't proven because it does not exist but the bigfoot advocate will tell you they are super stealthy, have supernatural powers that thwart technology or even lull humans into a state of near unconsciousness.  As a proponent yourself I'll wager you subscribe to that gospel. 

 

1. you better read your reply in page 17 of the "best evidence" thread because you state that a photo isn't credible because the legs " seem a bit long.", then conclude the photo has the same leg length as a human (which contradicts your initial statement that the photo's leg seemed "a bit longer".

 

2. I'm not a proponent. I'm a Skeptic, in the classical sense of the word.

[Guest DWA]

3.  He continues to cite every single proponent claim as if it is the heart of the evidence.  This is like inviting people who think the sun was Installed by Great Kahili to a solar physics conference.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

3.  He continues to cite every single proponent claim as if it is the heart of the evidence and is the consensus.  This is like inviting people who think the sun was Installed by Great Kahili to a solar physics conference. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

Honor and integrity are but two of the greatest virtues anyone can bestow on another out of respect and admiration and yet, they are qualities that aren’t easily recognized in an individual unless you (generally speaking) are taught to believe in them.  An individual can be poor in material riches and wealthy in wisdom, honor and integrity and be noble in their deeds.

 

The question how would anyone really know who is honorable and trustworthy? I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I came to that conclusion by SWWASP’s actions and deeds and so the point I’m driving in is that if one doesn’t know what makes a person virtuous what does it matter?  Therefore, I am of the opinion that man exemplifies those qualities not easily found in people.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honor; sincerity and integrity?  Counts for little in bigfootism.  Todd Standing came across as sincere as they get  need I remind you?  Each and every hoaxer/con artist and scammer is on the surface sincere and brimming with integrity.  If you're trying to get funding and or make a buck in bigfootism you sure are going to turn on the charm and be just as sincere as the day is long.  Bob Heronimous (sp) is as sincere as they come when claiming he wore the monkey suit.  Sure honesty and sincerity is wall to wall in bigfootism.  

1. you better read your reply in page 17 of the "best evidence" thread because you state that a photo isn't credible because the legs " seem a bit long.", then conclude the photo has the same leg length as a human (which contradicts your initial statement that the photo's leg seemed "a bit longer".

 

2. I'm not a proponent. I'm a Skeptic, in the classical sense of the word.

Do you know what I consider credible looking videos and photos?  I went to the trouble of posting some for the benefit of the forum and they whined that bigfoot researchers don't have the expertise or $$$$$ to make good photos.  That said there is nothing that comes close to the standards that are achieved in the real world photographing nature.

3.  He continues to cite every single proponent claim as if it is the heart of the evidence.  This is like inviting people who think the sun was Installed by Great Kahili to a solar physics conference.

And yet you have nothing to show for your beliefs.  Well while I'm off on my real world fool's errand today perhaps I'll take some nature photos that will support what the real world of nature can and does look like.  So what have you got?

[Bonehead74]

You were me 10 years ago?? Really? Well that’s interesting …J I've heard it said before that somebody seen somebody that looked like me but never had anyone tell me they were me ... That's a first LOL ... Okay, show me the science and peer review demonstrating how it is possible for you get inside my mind and eyes at the very moment in time where I was ten years ago that enables you to make such claims ...

Easy there, it's just a metaphor.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Bonehead74