Jump to content

A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark


Guest Crowlogic
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Other than Norseman the believers in this thread have contributed very, very little in terms of constructive content and we're 61 pages deep at this point.

 

 

And what have YOU contributed apart from repeatedly whining about being bullied and getting offended? This thread was a troll thread from the get go and deserves to be treated as such. The savvy ones amongst us knew that from the start.

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This and the posts above it by Neanderfoot show how little has actually been accomplished since the PGF, thanks to the bigfoot skeptics' intellectual vacancy neon billboard mentality. The thread draws a lot of traffic but NO evidence in addition, schools the ignorant in how much evidence - virtually proof - there is. I'm bummed about the lack of evidence but I really shocked that adherents cannot admit the lack of acknowledge the mountain of evidence. Instead it's a bash session on clinic in critical thinking and a hearty horse laugh at the bigfoot skeptics'  "rah-rah", "we're the special people" echo chamber  (see Crowlogic and his personal Buddhi).

 

LOVE fixing stuff. 

 

Other than Norseman the believers in this thread have contributed very, very little in terms of constructive content and we're 61 pages deep at this point.

 

Says, um, some guy who really is showing how impermeable some, er, features of humanity are.

 

The topic is Where are we 50 years post patty. That's the topic.

 

Great, now figure out *where we are,*  stooooodious, and get with the people who know what's up here.

 

This other nonsense is really just cyber bullying of skeptics

 

Wait.  [wipes gentle brow of bigfoot skeptic with tis-sue]  Awwwww.  Man up, Buttercup.  Bigfoot skepticism is all about nasty.  Can't stand the heat,  go hide behind James Randi.

 

for pointing out that 50 years post patty all the casts,trackways,thrown rocks, trail cam photos, etc have led to exactly nowhere. It took science less time, from the first report in Europe till type-specimen, than it's been since the PGF. The gorilla specimen was the 1800's, in the african jungle for goodness sakes. Less time than we've waited since patty. And sasquatch, if reports are to be believed, runs across roads on a regular basis. Heck there's some guy on this site who was implying that he heard a sasquatch from his backyard recently. These things LOVE being near humans and yet not a since hair or piece of scat in 50 years.  [all been said before garblegarble]

 

IMO, if you aren't skeptical about this topic based on those results; you....are....unhinged.

 

No.  If you can't read things written in eighth-grade-accessible English that you have been directed to over and over and over...never mind be bothered to pull head from hole to think a bit...

And what have YOU contributed apart from repeatedly whining about being bullied and getting offended? This thread was a troll thread from the get go and deserves to be treated as such. The savvy ones amongst us knew that from the start.

Straight flat-up trolling...and far less informed than most, to boot.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO, if you aren't skeptical about this topic based on those results; you....are....unhinged.

 

So are you actually and openly calling all the believers per se here unhinged? Is that the road you really want to go down? Seriously? You see, you really aren't doing yourself any favours by mocking and throwing insults around like that.

Edited by Neanderfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[some people's feelings are pointless to hurt] 


So are you actually and openly calling all the believers per se here unhinged? Is that the road you really want to go down? Seriously? You see, you really aren't doing yourself any favours by mocking and throwing insults around like that.

Seriously, here is a guy we're talking to who really thinks "If I haven't seen something in two years, it doesn't exist."

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fine Cotter. The topic of the thread is where are we 50 years post patty. So, where are we. Is there a research group which you feel has a snowballs chance in heck of finding a single piece of trace evidence?

unfortunately if the research group is not pro kill and continues to advance Bigfootdom with more plaster casts, audio files and grainy photos i think we will be at this for a very long time. its possible though that technology may solve this problem for us as the world gets to be smaller and smaller. Which may include things like advances in DNA, nanobot technology and many more fossil finds.

or it still may simply come down to a bullet at the right place at the right time.

either way the subject isnt advanced until we have proof no matter how much evidence we have to support our assertions. its just a theory until its proven 100%.

for gosh sakes if your having sightings? harvest one and be done with it, drive it to a major university and call the news.

but unfortunately this opens up a whole other debate which rages with the same fury as skeptic vs proponent.

but i agree with the skeptics that proof needs to happen. i dont care how but i prefer the most expediant way, which i deem to be a bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even those of us who'd rather not...are rooting for proof however it happens.

 

Proof to the society, now.  Solid acquaintance with the evidence has convinced every person who has gotten it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norseman...me and some others see every indication the world is as small as it is ever likely to get at this moment.  Visions of Kurtzwellian-techno-narcissistic-AE-singularity fantasies well to the side (where they belong) my real concern is that before the critter can be bagged and tagged, the connectivity of the world will slip down past the point where all of us would even likely be aware of it when it happens. As far as I can tell, this was likely the outcome at other, earlier times as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, ^^^this is the reason to get well acquainted with the evidence.  The animal is real, I've seen and heard evidence personally, and I keep my eyes open, because I might see one.  Just the way I do when in cougar, wolf or grizzly country...only it's *many many more places,* and it *is* because the evidence *SAYS* so.

 

I care not what those insufficiently interested to get up to speed think.  They are living in a far bleaker, far less exciting world than me.  They know less.  Who cares what they think?

 

In touch with the wild since childhood, I don't wait for musty museum corridors to tell me what the world is like.  I get out and *see* it.  Very advisable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fine Cotter. The topic of the thread is where are we 50 years post patty. So, where are we. Is there a research group which you feel has a snowballs chance in heck of finding a single piece of trace evidence?

 

I like NAWAC's approach.  Although they've gone silent, and are not a highly trained nor funded group.  Pretty much working on a volunteer basis.

 

Not a good combo if we're looking for fast results.  Which, IMO, explains why, in 50 years, we're where we are.  Are you aware of a well funded, highly trained group of individuals that have been attempting to find BF, but failing for all this time? 

 

Also, you cite gorillas in jungles as an example of primate discovery.  Are you speculating that a BF's intelligence is equal to that of a gorilla?  If so, why?  (Additionally, since we're on the topic of gorillas, a population of 125K gorillas went unnoticed for decades until they were stumbled upon.....in said jungles.....in modern times). 

 

http://www.gorillas.org/125000_gorillas_discovered

 

Goes to show what the heck people know about primate populations on the planet.  Mind you the western lowland gorilla is one of the most studied primates on the planet.  Would you care to render a guess on the millions spent on gorilla study efforts?  And 125K of them just simply didn't exist until they were...well....'discovered'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pure ignorance shown up in that gorilla example puts paid to all bigfoot skeptic arguments.  (Hint:  there's a similar story for orangutans.  Check out the tiny range that *those* dummies miscounted.)

 

If you want to stay in the dark about something:  wait for a scientist to enlighten you.  There is a handy alternative:  do it yourself.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^Pssst (sotto voce) It is beginning to be confirmed that many of our gadfly posters lack fundamental instruction in the essential canon of natural history writing and discovery...at least, my attempts to engage them on this topic have fallen flat.  I'm disappointed to have this confirmed, but not surprised. I suspected as much.  There is ignorance, and then there is pride in willful ignorance. One of those can be excused, but not the other, if a lending library exists within 20 miles or so. One can almost imagine the multitude of rejoinders this comment might draw, all beginning with some variation of , "I don't need...." You just watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

Well...it seems to be coming into focus better all the time. We now are informed Crowlogic thinks math is what controls on the point of if BF lives or not. I would have a very hard time making up stuff like that. Explains buckets.

As this thread evolves the thought process of the proponents exposes the kind of intellectual slurry that keeps the drums beating with ever more vapidity.  WSA math was mentioned a few posts back.  I posted that some things are provable and not open to interpretation as to how the proof emerges from the application of the proven formula.  I used 2+2=4 as the example.  This is a proven outcome and at least in this incarnation of the laws of  physics and math will result in the the answer.  It had nothing to do with proving bigfoot, it had to do with a blanket like statement that another poster made saying that proofs are mutable.  I supplied the appropriately simple arithmetic to demonstrate that some proofs are immutable.

I like NAWAC's approach.  Although they've gone silent, and are not a highly trained nor funded group.  Pretty much working on a volunteer basis.

 

Not a good combo if we're looking for fast results.  Which, IMO, explains why, in 50 years, we're where we are.  Are you aware of a well funded, highly trained group of individuals that have been attempting to find BF, but failing for all this time? 

 

Also, you cite gorillas in jungles as an example of primate discovery.  Are you speculating that a BF's intelligence is equal to that of a gorilla?  If so, why?  (Additionally, since we're on the topic of gorillas, a population of 125K gorillas went unnoticed for decades until they were stumbled upon.....in said jungles.....in modern times). 

 

http://www.gorillas.org/125000_gorillas_discovered

 

Goes to show what the heck people know about primate populations on the planet.  Mind you the western lowland gorilla is one of the most studied primates on the planet.  Would you care to render a guess on the millions spent on gorilla study efforts?  And 125K of them just simply didn't exist until they were...well....'discovered'.

Would you care to look at the thread that talks of the money invested in bigfoot research.  The oh money is never applied is tired and hollow .  How much did it take Roger Patterson to get his film?  How much did it cost Paul Freeman to get his video and his track casts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, ^^^this is the reason to get well acquainted with the evidence. 

 

Agreed, else you might get fooled by an April's Fool video.

 

 

 

I care not what those insufficiently interested to get up to speed think.  They are living in a far bleaker, far less exciting world than me. 

What color is the sky in your world? Are there two suns? Two moons? Is everyone else there as smart as you?

 

 

They know less.  Who cares what they think?

 

Obviously you do or you wouldn't carry on this incessant babbling about how everyone else is stupid and you're smart.

 

 

In touch with the wild since childhood, I don't wait for musty museum corridors to tell me what the world is like.  I get out and *see* it.  Very advisable.

Yes, you are the only one here who does that.

 

 

The pure ignorance shown up in that gorilla example puts paid to all bigfoot skeptic arguments.  (Hint:  there's a similar story for orangutans.  Check out the tiny range that *those* dummies miscounted.)

 

If you want to stay in the dark about something:  wait for a scientist to enlighten you.  There is a handy alternative:  do it yourself.

You realize it was a scientist who informed you about those 125,000 gorillas, don't you, or had you already got out there and discovered them yourself?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like NAWAC's approach.  Although they've gone silent, and are not a highly trained nor funded group.  Pretty much working on a volunteer basis.

 

Not a good combo if we're looking for fast results.  Which, IMO, explains why, in 50 years, we're where we are.  Are you aware of a well funded, highly trained group of individuals that have been attempting to find BF, but failing for all this time? 

 

Also, you cite gorillas in jungles as an example of primate discovery.  Are you speculating that a BF's intelligence is equal to that of a gorilla?  If so, why?  (Additionally, since we're on the topic of gorillas, a population of 125K gorillas went unnoticed for decades until they were stumbled upon.....in said jungles.....in modern times). 

 

http://www.gorillas.org/125000_gorillas_discovered

 

Goes to show what the heck people know about primate populations on the planet.  Mind you the western lowland gorilla is one of the most studied primates on the planet.  Would you care to render a guess on the millions spent on gorilla study efforts?  And 125K of them just simply didn't exist until they were...well....'discovered'.

NAWAC is a group of volunteers but they believe that there is a group of sasquatches which stay, (which goes against the migration hypothesis), in their search area. They are also spending a lot of time in the area which can only help their chances. The results thus far are a bit disappointing but at least they are out there swinging.

 

I have NO idea about the intelligence level of an undiscovered animal BUT, for shy animals, they spend a lot of time around human habitation/roads. So intelligence level seems of little importance, they are around. A recent SasChron episode interviewee claimed that a sasquatch tried to sneak up on he and a friend while they are in the middle of a fireworks war (firing bottle rockets, etc. at another group of boys). Not exactly the behavior of an elusive, shy, humanphobic animal, right? And with all this hanging near human settlements still not a bit of scat or a piece of hair. I wish it weren't so, I'd be much happier if sasquatches had been discovered a long while back.

 

Thanks by the way, for your kind reply.

unfortunately if the research group is not pro kill and continues to advance Bigfootdom with more plaster casts, audio files and grainy photos i think we will be at this for a very long time. its possible though that technology may solve this problem for us as the world gets to be smaller and smaller. Which may include things like advances in DNA, nanobot technology and many more fossil finds.

or it still may simply come down to a bullet at the right place at the right time.

either way the subject isnt advanced until we have proof no matter how much evidence we have to support our assertions. its just a theory until its proven 100%.

for gosh sakes if your having sightings? harvest one and be done with it, drive it to a major university and call the news.

but unfortunately this opens up a whole other debate which rages with the same fury as skeptic vs proponent.

but i agree with the skeptics that proof needs to happen. i dont care how but i prefer the most expediant way, which i deem to be a bullet.

I am, and have always been, pro kill. I think it's clear that DNA would do the trick but if one round will finish the discussion, super deal.

 

We've discussed the DNA option previously and I think you're a part of NAWAC. I believe the group hasn't been out in area X much in the winter but I really think that's the groups best bet. Again, as we've previously discussed, scientists DNA typed a polar bear just from it's tracks in a snow field. So in winter I suggest a drone which then could look for a trackway through the snow. Send in a group to collect DNA just as has already been done. I understand that there would be expense involved here BUT we are talking about the biggest discovery in biology in maybe, ever. I think the expense can be justified after the many years the NAWAC group has already expended without hitting a homerun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Bodhi, what hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that well organized and funded Bigfoot research organizations do not publicly share any evidences. They also do not share evidences procured with other research organizations. I know for a fact the BFRO adheres to this policy and all of it's investigators are required to sign a NDA. If there has been progress made it's being held close to the vest by such research organizations until the time proof is aquired.

Edited by WesT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...