Damning For Skeptics

[Guest River]

So is the complete lack of results after hundreds of millions of dollars invested in investigating UFOs and sending signals into the sky. But we haven't done anything like that with sasquatchery, have we?

game over (your rules)

I don't. I wrote that to emphasize "did, as in the past, despite millions of dollars invested in a search" vrs "does, and confirmed after millions of dollars invested in a search". Frankly, I don't know if it ever existed. I guess I just believe they did because they were widely accepted by science and locals alike.

game over (your rules again)

See, believing isn't a problem for me.

I have no problem believing when some evidence is brought in that is not only palpable its authenticity is indisputable. Why would I believe it if that was not the case?

How about you? Do you know that ivory billed woodpeckers existed at one time? If so, how so?

Game over (your rule)

Funny. I'm a pretty outdoorsy guy, and have been described as "wild" on several occasions, but I've never actually been described as a "species of wildlife" before. So, I suppose in your case, you can be such a species, if you really want to.

Definitely! haha

I suppose someone with a deformed foot 17 1/2 inches long could have been convinced to walk barefoot from a garbage dump through the snow for miles in the dark, then swim across the Columbia River. I actually suppose a number of people without deformed feet could be convinced to do so in order to supply people like yourself with fodder for denial of the obvious.

But I really doubt it. Call me a skeptic.

Youre a skeptic. Feel better? Seriously though, until there is proof that any sasquatch makes just one print - its foolish (imho) to consider it as sasquatch evidence. To date it is manufactored, fabricated, or mis-identified. Im willing to change my opinion on that any day just like you stated opinions about those particular (Wallace) casts were considered fake. I consider them all fake until one is proven to be real. Skeptic? Sure. Who wouldnt be when it comes to this subject and youve been around the block a few times. (as you and I have in this arena)

Is that such a bad position to take? Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also seems like wildlife officials would repsond in a reasonable way given the right evidence. Its just not there.

We can argue round n round about this but I pretty well understand your stance, and why you take it. I just dont agree with it. I do think if anyone brings for real evidence then it will get the attention it deserves. Until then there will be repeat/hoax/biscardi/expedition-fun ad nauseam that is a continual cycle of DOOM muwahahahahahah. Its funny though, in reality that might not be far from truth lol.

I wish there was cause and evidence - how freakin cool would that be? For the record I think you bring up some excellent points Hunster. Thats why I enjoy debating with you about them.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 October 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'll address these questions. These are not repeated questions or rehashes. When you revert to the rehash tactic, it's over.

Ivory billed SETI what? haha If I followed your rules, it wouldve been game over a long time ago. ;-)

You are under no requirement to address the points I'm pounding home. You can stop any time you wish.

And even if he did, big deal. One man fooling people? That justifies the ignorance of the entire phenomenon continent wide with documented testimony going back at least to 1811?

No. What it does do, is give proof that man hoaxed prints and it fooled well known "investigators".

"Well known 'investigators'"?

Don't make me laugh. A newspaperman from a small town in British Columbia, the Great Investigator?

Aren't you one of the denialists trying to pooh pooh official agencies investigating for the first time?

I'm sure you'd recommend Inspector Clouseau as the preferred "official investigator", too, wouldn't you?

As soon as you or someone else proves even one of those prints comes from a real sasquatch - I'll be more than happy to conceed the point and say some footprints are made by sasquatch. Until then.... they are made by men. Proven.

I will concede that some have been made by men. However, your rigid denial, especially that all have been made by men.... "Proven"; shows your incredibly closed minded, ideological faux pas.

Only to a denialist.

Seems like you have been doing a lot of that when it comes to some of these points

Only to a denialist. See my recognition above that people hoax prints.

And, again, a report with nothing but testimony with no other supporting evidence doesn't require an "investigation". A local cop came, he talked to the guy, he looked around, and he filled out his daily report. End of event.

You admitted that the response was sufficient, and that "probably" if there was biological evidence at the scene it wouldve been investigated further. Which brings me to the whole point we were arguing.....

I said the current system takes reports of unusual animals. You said they do not investigate these claims.

Back to the silly trap I already caught you on? You offer a silly sighting report in North Carolina that Barney Fife reported to, and try to use that to denigrate my position that official wildlife agencies are not living up to their responsibility to look into this phenomenon?

Go pound sand, pal. I don't have to take this garbage. This exchange is over. I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to encourage your intellectually insulting game.

[Guest River]

You are under no requirement to address the points I'm pounding home. You can stop any time you wish.

The only point I get from your posts is youre angry about the amount spent on ivory billed woodpeckers and SETI. (of course im being sarcastic, but hey its par for the course in this discussion on both sides ) You couldve stopped using ivory billed anything, or ufo anything after the first exchange and that wouldve been fine. When you start putting rules on the conversation that you ignore yourself, thats when I say game over too.

"

Well known 'investigators'"?

Don't make me laugh. A newspaperman from a small town in British Columbia, the Great Investigator?

Aren't you one of the denialists trying to pooh pooh official agencies investigating for the first time?

Green wasnt the only guy fooled by them. No denialist here. Im more than willing to change my position on any of these points. Im just waiting for proof that even one of these prints is from a sasquatch before Im willing to call it sasquatch evidence. Whats wrong with that? Denialist? I think you like tossing around names like that a little too easily (again jmho)

I'm sure you'd recommend Inspector Clouseau as the preferred "official investigator", too, wouldn't you?

I have faith in the men and women doing the job currently. I think they care about our lands and parks and if given the right evidence it would be acted upon with the neccesary funding and research.

A family of sasquatch walk into a parking lot in Yellowstone park and sit down on a bench and asks for a cup of coffee and some pancakes. You bet your ass off hes getting some pancakes. The only thing missing from this scenario is the **** sasquatch. (since the phenomenon began I might add - no proof of its existence. sasquatch = a ghost apparently)

I will concede that some have been made by men. However, your rigid denial, especially that all have been made by men.... "Proven"; shows your incredibly closed minded, ideological faux pas.

No rigid denial here. My proven was not that ALL prints have been proven to be from men. My point and wording is that we have proven that men do sometimes make these prints. We have not proven one sasquatch ever made one print anyplace. We have proven that men have done this more than once, and more than one man. Multiple times proven. Sasquatch prints? Never proven.

Only to a denialist. See my recognition above that people hoax prints.

Again, whos denying anything? Im more than happy to change my position. I just require some order of evidenciary proof other than the current body of evidence. You want denialist? Take a look at the current body of evidence. Youre a denialist if you think it is strong enough to validate funding for research and investigating. (again jmho)

Back to the silly trap I already caught you on? You offer a silly sighting report in North Carolina that Barney Fife reported to, and try to use that to denigrate my position that official wildlife agencies are not living up to their responsibility to look into this phenomenon?

Yeah even you said probably the officials would investigate given some biological evidence on the scene. Dont get mad because there is no evidence... you cant blame the policeman, or the wildlife officials for that. I dont think our economy right now needs millions spent on the search for bigfoot. I think if anyone provides substantial proof the funding will be there no problem.

Go pound sand, pal. I don't have to take this garbage. This exchange is over. I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to encourage your intellectually insulting game.

Whos being insulting? Im being real. At least one of us is. I dont think that government officials are going to take what youve offered as a body of evidence any better than I did during this exchange. And, instead of saying go pound sand, I say" "<3 you honey"

Edited October 2, 2010 by River

[Huntster]

.....I say game over too.

Thank you. The intent is mutual, then.

Goodbye.

[Guest RayG]

...DOOM muwahahahahahah.

My son still loves playing that game.

RayG

[Guest River]

My son still loves playing that game.

RayG

Old school! Reminds me of dos days and win 3.1

[Guest River]

Thank you. The intent is mutual, then.

Goodbye.

Youre most welcome kind sir. You brought up some important issues that should be talked about that arent. I appreciate the interest.

[Guest]

No rigid denial here. My proven was not that ALL prints have been proven to be from men. My point and wording is that we have proven that men do sometimes make these prints. We have not proven one sasquatch ever made one print anyplace. We have proven that men have done this more than once, and more than one man. Multiple times proven. Sasquatch prints? Never proven.

"Evidence have to be proven before it's considered evidence", in short.

[Guest River]

"Evidence have to be proven before it's considered evidence", in short.

Evidence of what?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Being this is the largest Bigfoot Forum on the internet i would suspect maybe evidence of Bigfoot, Welcome to the BFF ~ Elect B ~ Manners seems to be lacking around here lately with the push to prove BF is not real at the top of the agenda.

Edited October 3, 2010 by RedRatSnake

[Guest River]

I just wanted to touch the point how do you know its evidence of sasquatch? what factors decide it is definitely sasquatch evidence?

If it is not verified to be evidence of sasquatch, it should not be called such. Maybe a better label for it would be "unknown" footprint that looks like a human or bigfoot print for example. To call something "sasquatch evidence" is really a pretty bold claim without the evidence to back it with. Does that seem like an unreasonable way to approach a subject that has been full of hoaxes and false claims? I think its a fairly reasonable position and one that anyone should take that seeks the truth about the phenomenon. To assume evidence as sasquatch related without proof is what Im talking about. Why would I assume after seeing a 18 inch foot print in the woods that this would be sign of sasquatch, and that it mustve left this track?

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

I also think boots on the ground will get it done. That is my point. If funding to search for this being were to ever arrive, it would not be to for people to look it for in theory in a library.

There is a difference between reporting bf and reporting a bf that talks back. If you don't see the difference, nevermind.

Good deal. But let's not suppress any stories from coming forward. As I said previously, let's hear them out and invest our efforts accordingly. Like you, I won't spend much time on the conversational Bigfoot nor the Bigfoot creatures that arrive in their flying saucers, but I'll listen to all reports and invest my efforts accordingly.

Chris B.

[Guest]

Evidence of what?

Of something? Why ask such a thing?

[Huntster]

"Evidence have to be proven before it's considered evidence", in short.

Then it becomes proof, not evidence.

[Huntster]

Manners seems to be lacking around here lately with the push to prove BF is not real at the top of the agenda.

I submit that it is impossible to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. The best that a denialist can hope for is that they can influence people into believing that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Of course, that fact will infuriate them all the more.