So. What Happens When Sasquatch Is Proven, And We All Know The Skeptics Were Wrong All Along?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Not a reply to DWA, but...

 

If Bigfoot were real, portals, portals, everywhere.

So your big hairy stinky buddy could come view his favorite human at any time and commune with him in telepathic bliss.

Whacking trees, hooting, howling at his heart's contents so that his human could appreciate him more for all his "communicativeness".

 

Occasionally he would rip heads of of babies and small animals such as elk, chipmunks, and bambi and thumper to reinforce his street cred (can't be seen as too much of a softy if you're a paranormal fangy fossil who scares the bejesus out of every one).

 

And of course he would be everywhere, around the nearest tree, just waiting for you to be able to discern his magnificent camouflage and evasion techniques. Of course he would want you to get out your video cam as well so you could post your unique, first ever, sensational discovery to Youtube. 

 

crikey, another blur.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Incorrigible1]

Necroposting like a rank amateur. Pomposity personified.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Refusing to disable knowledge deflectors. Ignorance posing as arrogance but don't we see that lots.  Release butthurt improve life, just my suggestion.

10 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Not a reply to DWA, but...

 

If Bigfoot were real, portals, portals, everywhere.

So your big hairy stinky buddy could come view his favorite human at any time and commune with him in telepathic bliss.

[snip]

Nothing portraying sasquatch as what the evidence says it's not could possibly be coming from me.  So, um, yeah.

Edited July 18, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

The great bigfoot hunter Roger Patterson (you know him as the fellow who captured the best bigfoot footage in history)  he stated in an interview in the late 60's that we could expect bigfoot to be in hand within ten years.  Now those are the words of someone who had nearly miraculous luck in all things bigfoot.  And where are we?  You know where where we are I don't have to remind you.

[Guest DWA]

Why are you holding Patterson responsible for almost literally *no one* taking him up on it?  HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT.  We have only the completely irrational response to the film to blame for where we are.

[salubrious]

On 7/17/2016 at 2:29 PM, aether-drift said:

If you have seen a sasquatch up close in good conditions, then AWESOME for you. The rest of us, however, have to play different rules. In my opinion, unless you have seen one personally - under unassailably good lighting conditions - the only reasonable position is "The jury is out."

 

This is the position of mainstream science and it is the correct position.

 

 

I can't argue with this, and yes, it was awesome for me. I sure wish I had a photo.

[SWWASAS]

Crow:  Roger Patterson was not a great bigfoot hunter.     He was one of two cowboys on horses who were lucky enough to go someplace and blunder into one and get it on film.    Roger did not think of himself as a researcher but a movie maker.    Bob Gimlin privately has told me he knew very little about BF before he encountered Patty.   He was as much a skeptic as many here until they ran into Patty.   I would dare say most skeptics here, admitting it or not, know more about BF than Patterson did when they had the encounter.    Not much was known then to learn.    Sceptics that hang out here normally know quite a bit.    They might not believe any of it but they have heard the lore.    While I admire their good luck,  the mistakes that were made following the filming were significant, particularly with footprint evidence and size determination.    Much of which has occupied this and other threads for many many years.       If they had marked where they filmed from, measured to where footprints were found, and compared a known height to the film,    they could have determined Patties height.     We are not even sure which lens they had selected on the camera.   Documentation of the footprints was really amatuer hour.    What they did was for the film not for data.   Because none of that was done, this and other threads go on and on. 

[guyzonthropus]

Incorr- dang, dude!

 

DWA -well put

 

Crow- I only ask you why?

 

Salubrious- indeed a point worthy of mention..

 

SWW- film making vs research could certainly be a distinction of approach resulting from the different goals and priorities that lead to RP' s lapse in protocol. In a sense, it's almost remarkable that he even got the prints cast! Wasn't it more as backup in case he didn't get footage, rather than as evidential corroboration?

Your point about the current skeptics knowing more about BF'than most knew back then is interesting, and must be a pinch of salt in the lesions of the skeptics, for that alone demonstrates that significant progress in the field has indeed been made. Kudos!

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Problem, I submit a post and it submits the last post I made from this thread.

It is a logic loop that happens again and again.

And the real problem, you can't cancel out of it when it starts happening.

All I have to hit is reply to the post or mouse click in the box and it happens and then it just won't quit no matter what, jumping out of the thread, etc.

Need to have a logic that breaks the loop such as cancel, quit, kill, etc.

probably has to do with mouse insertion into the form field of thread reply, thread cursor select insert, etc.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna