A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest Crowlogic]

And CL continues to demonstrate why he won't be taken seriously anytime soon. Hint: Anne Boleyn.  (It's history AND Science Crow) Read man, read! 

You are correct.  Those mired in the myth are incapable of taking anything seriously except that which keeps the myth going.  Surly you understand that I don't take you or any other member of bigfootism seriously.

[Guest]

I'm not now nor have I in the past mocked anyone. Please either note where I've done so or apologize. Thanks.

 

Once again, please note where I wrote 'you'.  I didn't write 'you'. I clearly wrote 'the' and 'they'. I don't need to apologize for anything.

There are skeptics and trolls here on this forum clearly mocking and ridiculing the subject of bigfoot, some in this very thread. Don't take everything so personally for goodness sake.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest]

 

Please be careful that you post according to the No Religion rule and that your posts don't leave others in a position that they can't respond WITHOUT breaking the rules.

 

Thanks for treading carefully on the thin ice!

 

Yes, it's very hard to clarify when asked what is more far fetched than bigfoot when there is such a restrictive rule about no religion. It really is frustrating but I understand it. Hence why I didn't expand nor insult anyone for their beliefs.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[norseman]

You are correct.  Those mired in the myth are incapable of taking anything seriously except that which keeps the myth going.  Surly you understand that I don't take you or any other member of bigfootism seriously.

Then why keep posting on a BIGFOOT forum????

If your not going to take ANYTHING we say with any level of seriousness? What possible level of discourse are we going to have with you?

[WSA]

You are correct.  Those mired in the myth are incapable of taking anything seriously except that which keeps the myth going.  Surly you understand that I don't take you or any other member of bigfootism seriously .

 Here' s hoping you'll get that library card soon. This reply doesn't deserve a response as you clearly are not interested in this topic enough to do your homework before posting, and I only flag it for those who think you have a basis for your opinions. 

[southernyahoo]

Then why keep posting on a BIGFOOT forum????

If your not going to take ANYTHING we say with any level of seriousness? What possible level of discourse are we going to have with you?

I'd plus that twenty times if I could......drove the nail straight through the board.

[Guest DWA]

Don't we humor some people, huh.

He takes nothing seriously....and feverishly posts here and even STARTS THREADS.

 

Something interesting must be said about anyone whose approach is "I don't read, study or think...and here are my conclusions."  There is bigfoot skepticism.

[Guest WesT]

There's a big difference between skeptisism and trolling.

[Guest DWA]

Bigfoot skepticism is, essentially, trolling.  It never learns, never builds on what it has never learned, never adds to the conversation.  They're still arguing every single thing that's been laid to rest over the last 50 years.  Not doing well there, I'd opine.

[Guest WesT]

All I can say then is I disagree. Skeptisism sparks debate in which we can all learn something new. Trollings intent is to drag down a discussion and make people look bad.

[Cotter]

So it isn't like people have to learn higher mathematics, geometry and calculus  to know if there's anything to it.

 

No, but anthropology, origins of homonids, and historical populations on the planet would help.

 

The one thing that most folks forget is that IF the planet is not shared between several types of hominids (meaning homo sapiens are the only one) that this is the exception to the rule.  One look back and we can realize that for 4 million years plus, there have been several groups sharing the planet.  As recently as 10k years ago I might add.

 

So, proof aside, it is those that are taking the 'non existant' side are the ones pushing the potentially absurd. 

[Yuchi1]

 

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

 

Given the linked website is another of the ilk such as Randi's SI forum (noticed he is on their BoD) and those are (IMO) havens for some of the most close-minded individuals ever encountered, CL appears to be engaging in trolling rather than serious inquiry.  Sites such as those (IMO) serve to illustrate that intelligence (real or as in some cases, imagined) does not necessarily translate to wisdom.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Yuchi1

[Guest DWA]

All I can say then is I disagree. Skeptisism sparks debate in which we can all learn something new. Trollings intent is to drag down a discussion and make people look bad.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that "bigfoot skepticism" is what I label trolling to separate it from true skepticism.  I've said that numerous times here but anyone could possibly have missed them all.  I'm a skeptic.  I don't believe in anything, and with one exception which I got over, never have.

 

I have, honestly, never seen a person with an honest assessment of the evidence who is sure it doesn't represent an unlisted animal...or who is even leaning markedly toward that assessment.  Period.    If someone can point me to such I'd be interested.  I've never read a skeptic here that I considered "informed."

What I have learned here I have learned from proponents...and that is everywhere I have looked on this topic as well.  Bigfoot skepticism simply is not either informed or helpful.  It is, in fact, blatantly obstructing a scientific investigation.

Edited July 29, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Maybe not, but a lesson in dental forensics wouldn't hurt.

You found some chewed on bones in a pile.  We know.  When the rest of the general woods going population and or scientific research/bigfoot research community finds the same thing 1000 miles from you well those teeth marks will have stronger legs.  My guess is they will be just another enigma that will be often quoted but not repeated.  I hope you guys are right because at least a chewed on bone is not wishful thinking no matter what chewed it.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Bodhi]

 Here' s hoping you'll get that library card soon.

More ad hominem attacks from the believers. Hey GumShoe, here's another example for your consideration. Is this the high minded debate you want??