A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest]

Gumshoeye,

I began to notice a pattern within the world of Bigfootery. It was the perpetual "excuse" that prevents the footer from providing proof. The last bit of my belief hinged on the PGF. After investigating both sides I realized It is a man in a suit. This brought me to the conclusion that the existence of Bigfoot is highly unlikely (right next to zero). As for my Nakani thread I haven't had a chance to sum things up yet, my conclusions are that after much investigation the Nakani are not an undocumented hominid.

I for one would love for bigfoot to be real, I think that would be pretty cool. I just don't wish it was real so bad that I'm willing to pretend the evidence says it is.

I think You misunderstood when I referenced "a detective", you assumed I was talking about you, when I was just trying to tailor my analogy into something you could relate to.

 

That you for the explanation Nakani, I found your opening point very well written and interesting.

Dude, What is going on with you lately? The nastiness of your posts has gotten really out of hand.

 

If you read the thread early this morning you have figured that out.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I began to notice a pattern within the world of Bigfootery. It was the perpetual "excuse" that prevents the footer from providing proof. The last bit of my belief hinged on the PGF. After investigating both sides I realized It is a man in a suit. This brought me to the conclusion that the existence of Bigfoot is highly unlikely (right next to zero). 

This about says it for me too!

[AaronD]

Really? Nancy Drew novels? 

I read a few books; I have about six book shelves full of books as I still prefer reading and holding them in my hands over Kindle. I keep a list of books I ever read and nope, there were no Nancy Drew novels I am aware of ….

 

So next time if it's a book referral you're looking for just learn how to ask ... you might learn something!

 

 

List deleted to spare scrolling

 

Thank you in advance if you choose to add my own to your list

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00YZ1VTZK

Edited July 19, 2015 by AaronD
posted wrong link, sorry :)

[SWWASAS]

OK so you two have got it all figured out. Case closed, QED. If that is true, and now you know, how about leaving the rest of us alone so we can discussed what we have witnessed without having to constantly endure your denialist drivel? The pattern I see is people that go into the woods sometimes see BF but skeptics that spend all their time on the computer never do. Who would have ever imagined that?

[Bodhi]

OK so you two have got it all figured out. Case closed, QED. If that is true, and now you know, how about leaving the rest of us alone so we can discussed what we have witnessed without having to constantly endure your denialist drivel? The pattern I see is people that go into the woods sometimes see BF but skeptics that spend all their time on the computer never do. Who would have ever imagined that?

Actually, Nakani spends ALL SORTS of time in the wild. I spend less admittedly but still, some.

But more to the point do you honestly just want to spend all of your time in the sasquatch echo chamber? That seems antithetical to thought but maybe that's your thing.

 

You could choose to ignore this thread ya' know and since you continue to post here I suppose you do receive some sort of endorphin/serotonin hit from continuing to post.

[Guest DWA]

Dude, What is going on with you lately? The nastiness of your posts has gotten really out of hand.

There is nothing routinely nastier than bigfoot skepticism.  Nothing.  It's nothing but nastiness.  Backed up by nothing.

Gumshoeye,

I began to notice a pattern within the world of Bigfootery. It was the perpetual "excuse" that prevents the footer from providing proof. The last bit of my belief hinged on the PGF. After investigating both sides I realized It is a man in a suit. This brought me to the conclusion that the existence of Bigfoot is highly unlikely (right next to zero). As for my Nakani thread I haven't had a chance to sum things up yet, my conclusions are that after much investigation the Nakani are not an undocumented hominid.

I for one would love for bigfoot to be real, I think that would be pretty cool. I just don't wish it was real so bad that I'm willing to pretend the evidence says it is.

I think You misunderstood when I referenced "a detective", you assumed I was talking about you, when I was just trying to tailor my analogy into something you could relate to.

The proof is in.  You can start reading any time you're ready.  All this obsession with proof proof proof...and no research.  Real headscratcher there.

[Guest Crowlogic]

There is nothing routinely nastier than bigfoot skepticism.  Nothing.  It's nothing but nastiness.  Backed up by nothing.

The proof is in.  You can start reading any time you're ready.  All this obsession with proof proof proof...and no research.  Real headscratcher there.

And there is nothing as foolhardy as bigfoot belief.  Seems the extremes breed just the sort of thing that is present.

 

Yes proof, proof, proof that's what is expected and demanded after half a century.  Sorry but entire lifetimes have come and gone in this.  I don't buy your stand for thirty seconds.  You preach research and reading yet you cannot offer or perhaps will not offer a single publication that a skeptic might  consider a good read.  Each and every bigfooter that tells the skeptic to find their own proof or research themselves does so because on some level they know they don't have the goods and can't deliver them.

[Guest DWA]

Good.  Proof is in.  You can start reading any time you're ready.

 

Each and every bigfooter who is telling the skeptics to read up and determine this for themselves understands science...because they are doing it, and demand it of anyone discussing the topic with them.  Maybe the most conspicuous feature of bigfoot skepticism is its fetishism of science...while not understanding at the most basic level what science even is.

 

ANY belief unbacked by evidence is foolhardy; and it looks like some are trying out the water at both ends of the pool, huh. 

[SWWASAS]

Nankani does spend a lot of time in the woods. And shoots and eats much of what he sees there. Do you suppose that a reasonably sentient creature like BF would avoid contact with such a prolific hunter who is most likely armed most of the time? I would think so, since it does not want to end up being dinner or a rug. Personal note: my friendly encounter I was not visibly armed, the gun was in my pack out of sight. Every encounter since when I have been visibly armed has not been friendly. Cooincidence? Probably, but it has me wondering.

Edited July 19, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Right, like wolverines are strolling out of the woods all the time to get shot...and we wouldn't know about those either if the wolverine, being an animal settlers were familiar with from Europe, weren't automatically credited from early verbal accounts.

[Bodhi]

Nankani does spend a lot of time in the woods. And shoots and eats much of what he sees there. Do you suppose that a reasonably sentient creature like BF would avoid contact with such a prolific hunter who is most likely armed most of the time? I would think so, since it does not want to end up being dinner or a rug. Personal note: my friendly encounter I was not visibly armed, the gun was in my pack out of sight. Every encounter since when I have been visibly armed has not been friendly. Cooincidence? Probably, but it has me wondering.

Buddy, that is such a cop-out. Hunters report sightings, SasCon has made a cottage industry of scary stories and many of those involve hunters. Just admit that you are grasping at straws or admit that you simply prefer the echo chamber but please let's not pretend that hunters do not report sightings.....

[Guest Crowlogic]

Buddy, that is such a cop-out. Hunters report sightings, SasCon has made a cottage industry of scary stories and many of those involve hunters. Just admit that you are grasping at straws or admit that you simply prefer the echo chamber but please let's not pretend that hunters do not report sightings.....

Indeed there are numerous hunter bigfoot reports.  Just shows proponent cherry picking to avoid the unpleasant facts.

[SWWASAS]

Both of Crowlggic and Bodhi should realize that someone predictable like Nankani who lives out in the woods is easier to avoid that some random hunter walking through the area. Local BF would know what his habit patterns are, where he goes, when he normally does it etc. When BF has a human contact with some random hunter, it has made a mistake, or the wind or background noise has masked the humans arrival. Hunters know what I am talking about with deer and other relatively dumb animals. Human scent is a very big factor in detection and avoidance by woodland animals. With the woods masking vision, scent and sound becomes ever more important for an animal to avoid humans.

Cherry picking?. You pick the name of one person (Nankani) and claim that since he spends a lot of time in the woods, and has not seen BF, therefore BF must not be there. That is cherry picking. Hunters and hikers see most of the BF? Ummm I thought there were no BF to see, yet you chastise me for not knowing that? Which is it? Or are you part of a disinformaton program and really do know how many BF hunters see? Or perhaps the hunters are so stupid they are just seeing a bear instead of BF? If a hunter makes the mistake of misidentifying bears in Grizzly country, he don't last long. I can guarantee with a great degree of probability you will not have a BF walk through the room where you keep your computer.

Edited July 19, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Rockape]

Hunters don't usually just randomly wander around in the woods. Most hunt the same territory, some for decades.

[Guest]

OK so you two have got it all figured out. Case closed, QED. If that is true, and now you know, how about leaving the rest of us alone so we can discussed what we have witnessed without having to constantly endure your denialist drivel? The pattern I see is people that go into the woods sometimes see BF but skeptics that spend all their time on the computer never do. Who would have ever imagined that?

It's a good idea to read the thread not just the last post before making a comment.