Popular Post Branco Posted May 28, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 28, 2017 2 hours ago, dmaker said: Cool story. I don't believe a word of it, however. Cool opinion, with a weight and value of a dung beetle's trophy. 6
Yuchi1 Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 What makes a scientist? IMO, one whose results can be replicated by others using the scientific method. Far as I know, people have been getting steadily beaned in the head by apples ever since Sir Isaac discovered such. On May 28, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Branco said: Cool opinion, with a weight and value of a dung beetle's trophy. You forgot....smell.
FarArcher Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 On 5/28/2017 at 11:04 AM, Branco said: Cool opinion, with a weight and value of a dung beetle's trophy. Banco, I still think dmaker should agree to go to a location - and in the event of bad weather or an off-night - agree on three nights. All he has to agree to is to sleep in a tent - but one with a pre-recorded sound - looped. He can use hearing protection or even music on earbuds to not be bothered, but I bet you have a tape loop that would ensure he gets a firm introduction as these things will certainly make themselves known. The right sounds - he'll get his face to face. His own, personal, proof. You think if offered, he'd go for it? Oh. And it would only be generous to let Incorrigible sleep in the same tent so they could share the same introduction. 1
Incorrigible1 Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 Chicken rancher talked a big game, too. LT, how ya doin'?
Guest DWA Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 On 5/25/2017 at 11:36 PM, Cricket said: Hello again to those on this thread! Here's something I was thinking about recently after seeing many descriptions of the eyeshine of Bigfoot at night. If we are talking about primates, then that feature is attributable to the tapetum lucidum, which is characteristic of Strepsirrhine primates. The Strepsirrhines include lemurs, lorises, and bush babies. Thus if Bigfoot has a tapetum lucidum, then it is either an ancestral trait shared with the Strepsirrhines, or a derived trait in Bigfoot, something it developed independently, and how that happened should be elaborated upon. Anthropoids do not have a tapetum lucidum, so this characteristic would distinguish Bigfoot from Haplorhines (tarsiers, NW monkeys, OW monkeys, apes & humans). I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on this. If the reports from those who have seen Bigfoot are to be taken seriously, then implications such as this should be taken into account. I've been saying for some time now that the presence of the tapetum lucidum in primates, any primates, is prima facie evidence that reports of eyeshine in sasquatch can't be dismissed, or used to dismiss the animal, as "not a primate characteristic." (Doesn't the douroucouli have a tapetum lucidum? There we'd have both prosimians and monkeys possessing the characteristic. Apparently that's not settled, but the discussion definitely suggests intriguing possibilities for sasquatch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_monkey) This is, of course, something that is only going to be advanced with a studied specimen.
Martin Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 0:42 AM, FarArcher said: Banco, I still think dmaker should agree to go to a location - and in the event of bad weather or an off-night - agree on three nights. All he has to agree to is to sleep in a tent - but one with a pre-recorded sound - looped. He can use hearing protection or even music on earbuds to not be bothered, but I bet you have a tape loop that would ensure he gets a firm introduction as these things will certainly make themselves known. The right sounds - he'll get his face to face. His own, personal, proof. You think if offered, he'd go for it? Oh. And it would only be generous to let Incorrigible sleep in the same tent so they could share the same introduction. Or you could just post a picture and/or recording of you many interactions. 2
FarArcher Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Martin said: Or you could just post a picture and/or recording of you many interactions. Oh, that would take away the thrill he could have by actually getting off his butt and taking a look for himself. You and dmaker and others want everything handed to them on a silver platter - not surprising - in a time where no one wants to do squat themselves, but want things all wrapped up in nice packages, so that after a brief moment of examination, they can move to another cause. Skeptics are a dime a doze, as it requires no effort. A skeptic can be lazy, sleep in late, in nice soft sheets, and after a leisure cup of coffee - make their way to the keyboard for their big day. Let's see, which canned denial or refutation will I select out of the dozen I have - will I apply to this post. Semi-professional skeptics lies somewhere between acute constipation, and something like a blown out tire. They demand your attention, but they never add one iota of benefit, and only slow things down. It's a lazy man's engagement. 2
Martin Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 1 minute ago, FarArcher said: Oh, that would take away the thrill he could have by actually getting off his butt and taking a look for himself. You and dmaker and others want everything handed to them on a silver platter - not surprising - in a time where no one wants to do squat themselves, but want things all wrapped up in nice packages, so that after a brief moment of examination, they can move to another cause. Skeptics are a dime a doze, as it requires no effort. A skeptic can be lazy, sleep in late, in nice soft sheets, and after a leisure cup of coffee - make their way to the keyboard for their big day. Let's see, which canned denial or refutation will I select out of the dozen I have - will I apply to this post. Semi-professional skeptics lies somewhere between acute constipation, and something like a blown out tire. They demand your attention, but they never add one iota of benefit, and only slow things down. It's a lazy man's engagement. Big talkers are even more common than skeptics and much easier to pick out in a crowd. At least Habituators have blurry photos of shadows. Big talkers use tall tales to make up for short comings in real life. 4
Guest DWA Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 1 hour ago, FarArcher said: You and dmaker and others want everything handed to them on a silver platter - not surprising - in a time where no one wants to do squat themselves, but want things all wrapped up in nice packages, so that after a brief moment of examination, they can move to another cause. I mention elsewhere that bigfoot skeptics are used to not having to do the work of science, which very much needs to be done here by anyone serious about the topic. It utterly escapes me how anyone could possibly think that a massive trove of consistent eyewitness reports and footprint finds doesn't constitute solid evidence. But anyone familiar with practically any scientific field would understand: oh it most certainly does. I've just gotten to the point of ending spoonfeeding particularly when the recipient treats every spoonful like kerosene. Like you, I just don't see the point.
dmaker Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 It utterly escapes me how anyone could possibly think that a massive trove of eyewitness reports and footprint finds constitute solid evidence.
Yuchi1 Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 On 6/6/2017 at 11:43 PM, Incorrigible1 said: Chicken rancher talked a big game, too. LT, how ya doin'? You have proof FA is LT? Evidence?
dmaker Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 The claim has been made. According to some here that now means you must prove that he is not. Personally, I don't really care.
Guest DWA Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 5/27/2017 at 0:50 AM, PBeaton said: "This also helps explain what I've always seen as an incongruency of action with proponents, particularly witnesses. Here you have someone that claims that without a doubt they have witnessed a hulking, 8 foot ape-man near to populated areas (many, many reports are nearby populated areas), yet they do nothing about it." Just my opinion, but I don't think folks are big on talkin' bout somethin' most don't believe. If you had a sightin', say a road crossin' at night, big as, hair covered, say a massive stride to cross road in two steps. Would you stop to investigate ? Would you tell folks ? Pat... The general illogic of bigfoot skepticism is no more evident than in this 'argument.' Which, like the rest of bigfoot skepticism, isn't one. Why should it matter, in the first place, what one does upon having a sighting? Exactly; it's irrelevant. (I'd LOVE to be there when dmaker had one. If he's alone when he does, I guarantee the rest of the world will never know. Why, the cognitive dissonance alone might do him in.) That you even had to ask that question, Pat, shows how little he's thought about this. And in the second place...with people like him giving it the reception they do, what makes them think they *deserve* that, much less the time of day? They really need to get out and do some searching and thinking for themselves, and stop the lazy-man approach. It would do them a power of good. (Another indication he doesn't read: virtually all witnesses were skeptics at best, most scoftics, when they had their encounters. So what dmaker is really asking is: why didn't *I* do anything?)
dmaker Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 1 hour ago, DWA said: The general illogic of bigfoot skepticism is no more evident than in this 'argument.' Which, like the rest of bigfoot skepticism, isn't one. Why should it matter, in the first place, what one does upon having a sighting? Exactly; it's irrelevant. (I'd LOVE to be there when dmaker had one. If he's alone when he does, I guarantee the rest of the world will never know. Why, the cognitive dissonance alone might do him in.) That you even had to ask that question, Pat, shows how little he's thought about this. And in the second place...with people like him giving it the reception they do, what makes them think they *deserve* that, much less the time of day? They really need to get out and do some searching and thinking for themselves, and stop the lazy-man approach. It would do them a power of good. (Another indication he doesn't read: virtually all witnesses were skeptics at best, most scoftics, when they had their encounters. So what dmaker is really asking is: why didn't *I* do anything?) You seem to forget my history here. I've been around for a few years now. I've read all the books you've mentioned, I've read a ton of reports. I think I've even autographed the first page of Bindernagels book in your honour and shared that here. You can't continue with your nonsense that I am uninformed when it comes to bigfoot. That I do not share your conclusion about the evidence is well known. But, please, stop pretending that I am some neophyte that knows nothing of this subject.
Branco Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 21 hours ago, dmaker said: You seem to forget my history here. I've been around for a few years now. I've read all the books you've mentioned, I've read a ton of reports. I think I've even autographed the first page of Bindernagels book in your honour and shared that here. Wow! You can't continue with your nonsense that I am uninformed when it comes to bigfoot. Right! That I do not share your conclusion about the evidence is well known. Well, just maybe, had you been in the field and seen, examined, photographed, wrote and published detailed accounts of some of that evidence or actual encounters with the subject animals, perhaps your conclusions about the evidence might have been altered. Logical? But, please, stop pretending that I am some neophyte that knows nothing of this subject. Neophyte: A beginner; novice. Novice: A person new to a field or activity. Whose's pretending, the folks who've been in the field and activity for decades or................? 1
Recommended Posts