norseman Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 That's weak sauce. Your evidence that Bigfoot doesnt exist is based off of the BSA's official stance on the issue? What about the troop leader's son that was there? I guess not so much huh? And I've said about a million times now I would not take a long shot on a Sasquatch. So you can stop being scared now OK? The troop leader's son didn't say it was Bigfoot either, you know. Neither did the troop leader, apparently. Did Finding Bigfoot conclude it was Bigfoot? They featured it on their show so it MUST be Bigfoot, right? Who, besides you, "sees" it as Bigfoot, norse (although without certainty to shoot)? I'm curious... Are the Boy Scouts of America in on the Bigfoot conspiracy, too, norse? A sinister government, greedy loggers, corrupt science... and the Boy Scouts. Please tell me more... What? The troop leader is long since dead. But he absolutely claimed it was a Bigfoot per his son's testimony. Did you even watch the episode in question? Conspiracy? No conspiracy.....just some prejudices to not discuss things that go bump in the night lest people think you are crazy. (just like Dr. Rose on the PGF) Lastly, I don't think film is ever going to prove anything, because we cannot rule out the zipper. But I see that you don't have any evidence to the contrary either if you rely on the BSA to keep you informed about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2016 ^Psssst.......oh you worked for it yourselves. That makes all the difference gee what was the rest of the world thinking. Come on Crow is this all you have as a wanna be skeptic, That what i said would make a whole lot of difference. What was I thinking when i wrote it I wonder, it surely was not how i want to conquer the world and take it over with Bigfoots. That makes all the difference gee what was the rest of the world thinking. Well maybe it does make a difference and one will never know until you or anyone else tries it. Witnesses still keep poping up with repoted sightings and skeptics will still be around denying these sightings until there is confirmation. Yet this argument will go on for years to come and skeptics will always be at odds with proponents. As the same with disbelief and belief, the two are of oppisite ends there is no mutual deal until one is reached. Are there odds of this happening now , no of course not. We have not reach that level of knowledge yet nor will we until we start to open our minds a bit, and except some of the theory that is floating around. But it is all in your court, your choice to except it , I have already made mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Skeptical dismissal of the evidence ignores one of the basic tenets of a sane and sound life: if a person tells one something, and there is no reason to believe the person is mistaken....there is no reason to believe the person is mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Well kids I suspect more than a few of you are relative newcomers. What astounds me is that bigfooters can't grasp the concept that it is possible to have examined the "evidence" and concluded it's a crock. We'll all turn in this evening and with 100% certainty there will still be no bigfoot in the morning. Now you can tell us you know know know it's real but without the monkey it's just as real real real as our friend the Great Pumpkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Well, if there were an actual skeptic with a credentialed scientific backgroung on the forum, my tolerance for such questions would be greater.... assuming that the credentialed skeptical scientist were objective, respectful, and professional. What we are actually subjected to, however, is a series of self-important blow hards, who subjectively define the scientific process to suit their preference, constantly redefine that by the post and even engage in personal attacks to harass proponents. After the 19th or 20th such person engages you it gets old. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 30, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 30, 2016 What astounds me is that bigfooters can't grasp the concept that it is possible to have examined the "evidence" and concluded it's a crock. See this is a matter of your opinion which is the point of this thread, No ! " Active Skeptics Where Is Your Evidence " The other side of the coin in which we all have to agree on. Yet, the proponent side is that so called evidence is proof that some concisderable size creature made the so called evidence because the witness saw what made it. An argument that niether side will never win, since one side will always have the advantage over the other. But why do we argue over this? what do we gain from this if there is anything that we can gain from this? Is there a truce in some logical way that we can come too if a body was never found? From Crows thinking A big NO ! unless a body hits that slab. For others who visit here who have had encounters , well they do not need a body they have an answers . Then we have those skeptics that are right on the edge who are leaning one side or the other like sea saw. Weighing their options like the weight of justice. Who are not convince that know there is some thing but not ready. I tell you Crow you make a strong argument and maybe this why these creatures dislike you, cause you have offended them with your skeptism. We'll all turn in this evening and with 100% certainty there will still be no bigfoot in the morning This is a sure deal 100% that we will all wake up tomarrow and not see a bigfoot on a slab I have no doubt about . So I agree with you there. Now you can tell us you know know know it's real but without the monkey it's just as real real real as our friend the Great Pumpkin. Now this is just an insult , but thats ok . I know what I saw and dealt with in my heart and I do not have to prove it to you now since you have not taken the offer. My question is how would you know it's monkey? if in your eyes they do not exist. It might be time to question your self and your thoughts if you believe they are monkeys . Cause Monkeys they are not,( just to keep this intresting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 "What astounds me is that bigfooters can't grasp the concept that it is possible to have examined the "evidence" and concluded it's a crock." We grasp that easily. What passes our understanding is that someone could do this, and be totally unable to tell us, in big adult words, how this process went for them. What people who say things like this can't grasp is that they are telling us, virtually in so many words, by the very things they say that they are unfamiliar with the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) Well kids I suspect more than a few of you are relative newcomers. What astounds me is that bigfooters can't grasp the concept that it is possible to have examined the "evidence" and concluded it's a crock. We'll all turn in this evening and with 100% certainty there will still be no bigfoot in the morning. Now you can tell us you know know know it's real but without the monkey it's just as real real real as our friend the Great Pumpkin.Oh yea of little faith.... What you need Crow is your own encounter...... that might make the wheels spin abit. Unless your Cervelo.....then you dont even trust yer own eyeballs. LoL. Edited March 30, 2016 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 ^Thing is Norse the math doesn't add up. The hokey hoaxes, the physical range it's reported, the 100% flat on the face junk science of the Ketchums the hole riddled Patterson story, the terrible duo of Dyer and Standing, London fakeway, the grand old masters of Wallace and Marx, fabulous Freeman and so on. I can appreciate honest blokes having extraordinary sightings by however they happen to manifest themselves but the math falls flat when each and every one of those honest blokes manage to fail entirely to produce anything that even remotely approached the hoaxers, that is even if it manages to exist at all. The story is the same the world over. So after all is said and done there is no compelling reason stake a belief on the subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 Consider this Crow..... if a real creature exists out there? It doesnt care about Dyer, Ketchum or the Smith family report. There is no critical mass point that with belief, it will spawn the creature into our existence. Most honest blokes have no plan or obligation to prove the existence of this creature to skeptics or science either. We have to go look, and if we find it we have to bring it back. And we have to be compelled to go look. I have gas in the gas tank based on my encounter, I understand completely if you dont..... but if you did it might be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted March 30, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) I do not see the Forum skeptics stopping with scientific acceptance. They will follow their present game plan. First of all they will attack the credentials of those that had the BF on the slab and argue that they are not qualified to make the determination. The DNA results are likely to be a mess even for geneticists. The skeptics will of course point to that as proof of mistaken identity. Then we will see character assassination of the scientists. If someone has not had an ivy league education, had personal indiscretions, drug or drunk driving arrests, beat their wife, filed bankruptcy or has some sort of alternative life style that will be rooted out and paraded for all to see to discredit the scientists. We have seen that character assassination over and over already. Mainstream science will be slow to turn the corner and it might take years and another body to confirm things or at least confirm there is a living population and the original was not the last of the species or some sort of genetic anomaly. While science is dealing with that, our skeptics will continue to discredit all current sightings, claim hoaxing for fame and fortune, continue to dismiss forum witnesses as crackpots and copy cats, and keep beating their where is the evidence drums. Some probably know this process will take time and that they might have years to keep making their denial claims before they finally turn to going after UFO witnesses or something else to occupy their time. They will not tuck in their tails and simply fade away over night at the announcement. They have too much fun and time invested here. Edited March 30, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 ^Thing is Norse the math doesn't add up. The hokey hoaxes, the physical range it's reported, the 100% flat on the face junk science of the Ketchums the hole riddled Patterson story, the terrible duo of Dyer and Standing, London fakeway, the grand old masters of Wallace and Marx, fabulous Freeman and so on. I can appreciate honest blokes having extraordinary sightings by however they happen to manifest themselves but the math falls flat when each and every one of those honest blokes manage to fail entirely to produce anything that even remotely approached the hoaxers, that is even if it manages to exist at all. The story is the same the world over. So after all is said and done there is no compelling reason stake a belief on the subject matter. ... they are telling us, virtually in so many words, by the very things they say that they are unfamiliar with the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted March 31, 2016 Moderator Share Posted March 31, 2016 Consider this Crow..... if a real creature exists out there? It doesnt care about Dyer, Ketchum or the Smith family report. There is no critical mass point that with belief, it will spawn the creature into our existence Norseman I totally agree with you here ! " if a real creature exists out there?" from which I know it does and so do others who have seen this creature, that it does not care about what we are trying to do as humans and that is examine this creature. All it cares about is it's survival and what it is going to do next. It is living in the wild so what does it care what we do as long as we do not invade. But then this is speculation and this is where we stand with most things about this creature, no firm knowledge. There is no critical mass point that with belief, it will spawn the creature into our existence The critical mass point that with belief, that will spawn the creature into our existence is having a sighting up close. You cannot deny what you see once you see it and it is explosive when it happens it changes how you once seen this world. But you cannot explain this to skeptic , and you surely cannot explain this to science with out talking to them in their jargon. No the only proof that skeptics have is denial of the evidence , that keeps popping up time after time. The evidence that some thing of a large mass is creating and leaving behind and leaving people at aw. Thing is Norse the math doesn't add up. The hokey hoaxes, the physical range it's reported, the 100% flat on the face junk science of the Ketchums the hole riddled Patterson story, the terrible duo of Dyer and Standing, London fakeway, the grand old masters of Wallace and Marx, fabulous Freeman and so on. I can appreciate honest blokes having extraordinary sightings by however they happen to manifest themselves but the math falls flat when each and every one of those honest blokes manage to fail entirely to produce anything that even remotely approached the hoaxers, that is even if it manages to exist at all. The story is the same the world over. So after all is said and done there is no compelling reason stake a belief on the subject matter. Crow The math does add up if you minus all the hoaxing and the hoaxers and are left with the real encounters. Like the witnesses who have seen them with evidence that have been found not in areas where the witness had said they seen their encounter. Where a researcher has searched further and found more evidence that the witness did not know about or had no idea about. Like reports where sightings have occurred and then investigated further and in different locations so that there could be no way of a hoax, and to find evidence of this creature existence. I am fine with you and how skeptical you are and that ok, we have to be skeptical. How can we just believe everything with out checking it out first, I can quote you some great words from a great book that says not to believe everything but to test to find the truth. Well I did that and I did this on a personal level , to find the truth. As skeptical as you are now I was then and even harder. You said a while back in a post that at one time you had a belief in this but the field upset you with the way the progress was going and decided to go this route. Fine no problem. We all have to make choices and these creatures are not going no where, there will always be people filling their dreams looking for these creatures. There will always be witnesses who have seen these creatures and there will be people like Sasfooty,Leaftalker and Fararcher, norseman who I believe might get the job done with the right people. But there are a lot of good people trying there best to provide what they can about these creatures. But a skeptic like your self well we need people like you that can push us and get us fired up , so that we can dis-prove your skeptical a** and I mean this with total respect Crow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Not sure really where anyone is getting "all the hoaxes." The things that can be pretty much conclusively considered hoaxes (read: pretty much all the video you see) are actually a very small percentage of the overall evidence. "All the hoaxes" is one of the most blatant ways one announces one's unfamiliarity with the volume, depth and consistency of the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 The issue DWA, is that YES on a whole there is evidence in the form of say BFRO reports that far outnumber the hoaxes however in most cases the bigger hoaxes get more publicity and viewed by a larger audience thus they stand out way more. Standing was on tv with Stroud, the freezer BF made front page news of many internet sites and even CNN if I recall correctly. This is what sticks in the minds of most people not invested in BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts