A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[norseman]

The most important person of all.................myself.  So have you delivered bigfoot to science today yet?

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

Really.  ^^That.

 

Crow:  your fundamentally unsound logic will ensure you make no converts among those capable of thinking stuff through.  I don't care what the mainstream thinks either; in fact it is TRIPLY CUBED COOL!!!!! that I know what is going on right here, at the cutting edge of science.

 

And they?

 

Don't.

So did your fundamentally sound logic deliver bigfoot to science today?  Do you have that reading list ready yet that will help firm up my flawed logic

Edited July 30, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

So what you are saying is if a person has been engaged in such an enterprise as this for a substantial period of time they are forbidden to draw a conclusion?

 

Draw all you want.  If the entire process of getting there occurred in your own head, without the outside interference of, um, information, don't expect it to be respected when you publicize it, is all.

 

 Does this mean if I studied arithmetic that I can never conclude that the study produced a conclusion for example 2+2=4 and must be skeptical of the equation?  Conversely there are legions of people here beating their chests proclaiming without doubt that bigfoot is real in no uncertain terms.  Well exactly how does that work lieu of there being no proof?  Some of the loudest chest beaters haven't had a sighting and are sifting through the same piles as skeptics BTW.

 

But we aren't sifting through the same piles...and you offer the best proof of that, as you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

[Guest]

So what you are saying is if a person has been engaged in such an enterprise as this for a substantial period of time they are forbidden to draw a conclusion?  

 No. I merely asked you how your stance is working out. It was a simple question to ask. You said your stance might "prevent people from succumbing to belief". You openly stated that in post #35. That sounds almost like a mission to me. I was just wondering how many people you have stopped from "succumbing to belief". 

[Guest DWA]

So did your fundamentally sound logic deliver bigfoot to science today?  Do you have that reading list ready yet that will help firm up my flawed logic

...and over and over and over and over and...and over and over and over and over and...and over and over and over and over and...and over and over and over and over and...and over and over and over and over and...and over and over and over and over and...

You have had the reading list pointed out to you ^^^this many times, and get cracking.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I never said my intent was to deliver bigfoot to science. I don't care if science accepts it or not. Doesn't bother me. Doesn't stop it from being real, just like it didn't stop the Vu Quang Ox and the Mountain Gorilla from being real before science accepted them. They were still real despite not being catalogued by science.

So you actually haven't prevented anyone from "succumbing to belief" since you started this thread? Thanks for the info.

Nevertheless I asked you a question.  I answered your question in the best way it could be answered.  I spoke for myself.  This said I'm not without support in my position.

[Guest]

  Conversely there are legions of people here beating their chests proclaiming without doubt that bigfoot is real in no uncertain terms.  Well exactly how does that work lieu of there being no proof?  

 

Just like how it works with everything else in the world that there is no proof for, that people believe in. Bigfoot is no different. Why are you going around thinking bigfoot is unique here? It isn't. Why pick on bigfoot?

Edited July 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[WSA]

Actually Crow, I do have that reading list.  Look down at "The (Non)Bigfoot Reader" thread I posted just yesterday. I would gently suggest that if you are not familiar or conversant with at least some of the authors on that list, your comprehension of this topic is going to necessarily be somewhat truncated.  It is not polite, I know, to point out one's deficiencies of this kind, especially these days, but there still is no way around that fact of life. I would love to engage you on any of those works you've read, others by the authors I mentioned, and whether you have suggestions for others I've not read.

[Guest Crowlogic]

 No. I merely asked you how your stance is working out. It was a simple question to ask. You said your stance might "prevent people from succumbing to belief". You openly stated that in post #35. That sounds almost like a mission to me. I was just wondering how many people you have stopped from "succumbing to belief". 

When you're "sleeping with the enemy" so to speak it is unreasonable to expect roses.  However when the sun goes down the pro bigfoot contingent will still be whooping in the dark and banging on trees in vain.  The gulf that separates the the reality of this issue from the beliefs in this issue is vast.

 

I'll tell you what since you have decided that my "mission" (your words)  is somehow dark and subversive why not have me banned from the forum?  It's that easy just do it.

[Guest DWA]

Actually Crow, I do have that reading list.  Look down at "The (Non)Bigfoot Reader" thread I posted just yesterday. I would gently suggest that if you are not familiar or conversant with at least some of the authors on that list, your comprehension of this topic is going to necessarily be somewhat truncated.  It is not polite, I know, to point out one's deficiencies of this kind, especially these days, but there still is no way around that fact of life. I would love to engage you on any of those works you've read, others by the authors I mentioned, and whether you have suggestions for others I've not read.

The point could be made.  

 

Only skeptic here who ever seemed to read the reports was one Saskeptic.  His problem, made obvious, was that he didn't *think about* them.  He reduced all his reading to the same neat tie-it-up that anyone unburdened by intellectual application can perform:  it was all this big campfire story, because everyone wants to be in The Bigfoot Club!

 

Yuh-huh.  Either you didn't get the software; or you aren't feeding it the right oil.  There's some oil in that thread.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just like how it works with everything else in the world that there is no proof for, that people believe in. Bigfoot is no different. Why are you going around thinking bigfoot is unique here? It isn't. Why pick on bigfoot?

Negative it doesn't work that way in in mathematics. Bigfootism is unique in that it is new enough to modern times to observe the evolution of a cultural mythology based on huckesterism.  Some clever stories, some clever hoaxes and it was off and running.

[Guest WesT]

Not sure what needs rewording. Anyone who wants me to agree with them as to their conclusion needs to do those three things to my satisfaction. If they don't care to, doesn't matter to me. I know what I know, regardless what scientists who demonstrably don't say to me.

I've heard it all from the naysayer camp. Here are some highlights:

Primates don't throw rocks. WRONG.

Primates don't build structures. WRONG.

There are no Native American legends of a Sasquatch like creature. WRONG.

There is nothing in the fossil record to indicate that such a creature could exist. WRONG.

Those are just a few examples of the things I've learned from the camp in question. I reasearch the claims made and learn from them.

[Guest]

When you're "sleeping with the enemy" so to speak it is unreasonable to expect roses.  However when the sun goes down the pro bigfoot contingent will still be whooping in the dark and banging on trees in vain.  The gulf that separates the the reality of this issue from the beliefs in this issue is vast.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Sorry. Nor do I really care.

 

 

I'll tell you what since you have decided that my "mission" (your words)  is somehow dark and subversive why not have me banned from this forum. It's that easy just to do it

 

 

I didn't say your "mission" (that YOU self admitted in post #35 was your hope) is dark and subversive. I merely asked you a question how it was working out for you seeing as you repeatedly kept asking others how did they do with proving bigfoot to science today, and the day before, and the day before that ad nauseam. Why is it ok for you to ask questions but not for others to ask you questions?.

 

By the way I can't ban anyone. I'm not admin nor even a mod so your point is bizarre to me. I'd like you to stay. You are doing a great job of putting your foot in it the more you hang around.

[Guest]

 

Edit. Double post.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[SWWASAS]

Crowlogic:   "Why not have me banned from the forum,  it's that easy just do it."    Crowlogic,  are you challenging the authority of the moderators or perhaps you are tired of arguing.?      If that stance is not indicative of trolling, I have no idea what trolling is. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT