Damning For Skeptics

[Guest alex]

Sure, when it was happening I had three things immediately pop into my head:

1. human friends trying to screw with my brain

2. a hippie cow, they wandered all over the place and looked like this

3. bear

RayG

Any reason's why it may have been a sasquatch?

Lol never saw a picture of a cow like that, that actually could explain some sightings

Edited September 25, 2010 by alex

[Huntster]

Huntster, the argument presented in the first sentence is not the strawman argument you have tried to turn it into. While the premise may be similar, the conclusion is not even close.

Ray, it most certainly is:

1) Skeptics decry the fact that no sasquatch bodies are produced

2) The thread points that out and asks why no hoaxer bodies have been produced

3) The charade begins

I'm deeply saddened to see you resort to such behavior. <sniff> (not really, I left my emotions at the door when I stepped into this thread)

And, frankly, I'm not surprised to have to engage you in this silliness. It's as if you feel compelled to bring that other "place" here for them. We're not stupid, regardless what they say.

[Huntster]

a hippie cow, they wandered all over the place and looked like this

A Scottish highlander. Impressive, even though they tend to be small. I once encountered one while trying to catch a moose here locally. At about 25 yards. He wasn't afraid of me.

I damned sure didn't think it was a sasquatch, but he looked as tasty as a moose.

[Guest RayG]

If you're asking if it's possible it was a squatch, sure, I leave the door open a crack. He can stick his big foot in there if he wants. There was just nothing that made me think immediately of squatch though. No foul smell, no vocalizations, no tracks, no nothing.

I remember being surprised at seeing those cows wandering around as though they owned the place. They'd cross the road, etc. not fenced in, just went where they pleased.

Huntster, what you consider silly, I consider necessary. It's tiresome seeing the same old fallacies being bandied about as though they're more valid today than they were yesterday.

I do my best not to bring emotional baggage into the discussion, and I don't think I've called anyone stupid, or even thought they were stupid.

RayG

Edited September 25, 2010 by RayG

[Guest]

Ray, it most certainly is:

1) Skeptics decry the fact that no sasquatch bodies are produced

2) The thread points that out and asks why no hoaxer bodies have been produced

3) The charade begins

And, frankly, I'm not surprised to have to engage you in this silliness. It's as if you feel compelled to bring that other "place" here for them. We're not stupid, regardless what they say.

You can't prove that no hoaxers have been shot because producing a dead hoaxer is not comparable to producing a dead bigfoot. Producing a dead hoaxer may have dreadful consequences to the person who produces it, especially if that person shot it.

How do you know hunters haven't shot hoaxers then saw what they shot and buried or hid the bodies?

[Guest alex]

You can't prove that no hoaxers have been shot because producing a dead hoaxer is not comparable to producing a dead bigfoot. Producing a dead hoaxer may have dreadful consequences to the person who produces it, especially if that person shot it.

How do you know hunters haven't shot hoaxers then saw what they shot and buried or hid the bodies?

You can say the same for sasquatch then, maybe people buried their bodies?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 25 September 2010 - 12:57 PM, said:

Ray, it most certainly is:

1) Skeptics decry the fact that no sasquatch bodies are produced

2) The thread points that out and asks why no hoaxer bodies have been produced

3) The charade begins

You can't prove that no hoaxers have been shot because producing a dead hoaxer is not comparable to producing a dead bigfoot.

Amazing.

No kidding? Killing an idiot in a suit will produce.............a missing idiot. Somebody will call the police (mommy, young wife, friend, etc), and (unlike official wildlife management agencies) the police will look in to the matter, and the odds of finding the dead idiot are quite high.

Did you really think about that before writing it?

How do you know hunters haven't shot hoaxers then saw what they shot and buried or hid the bodies?

Because there is no report of it happening?

How do you know hunters haven't shot a sasquatch then left the body and kept quiet? There is at least one report of that happening.

[Guest]

You can say the same for sasquatch then, maybe people buried their bodies?

And why would they do that? Are there just gangs of humans roaming the PNW woods looking for dead bigfeet to bury?

Edited September 25, 2010 by FuzzyGremlin

[Guest]

Amazing.

No kidding? Killing an idiot in a suit will produce.............a missing idiot. Somebody will call the police (mommy, young wife, friend, etc), and (unlike official wildlife management agencies) the police will look in to the matter, and the odds of finding the dead idiot are quite high.

Did you really think about that before writing it?

Because there is no report of it happening?

How do you know hunters haven't shot a sasquatch then left the body and kept quiet? There is at least one report of that happening.

There are no reports of missing people who have never been found?????

Edited September 25, 2010 by FuzzyGremlin

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 25 September 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

Amazing.

No kidding? Killing an idiot in a suit will produce.............a missing idiot. Somebody will call the police (mommy, young wife, friend, etc), and (unlike official wildlife management agencies) the police will look in to the matter, and the odds of finding the dead idiot are quite high.

Did you really think about that before writing it?

There are no reports of missing people who have never been found?????

Yet more amazing! Ray and I are bantering back and forth about stupid falsehoods, and you're going to try to posit that some of the millions of missing persons out there were shot while in an ape suit while trying to hoax a bigfoot encounter?

You're tumbling down this path of silliness for exactly what reason? It's just a common trait of yours? Characteristic for you? A common, desperate attempt by yet another skeptic to degrade a point made by a sasquatch believer?

C'mon............admit it.............you're one of those folks from "the other" forum, aren't you? It shows like a rainbow after the rain.

[Guest]

Yet more amazing! Ray and I are bantering back and forth about stupid falsehoods, and you're going to try to posit that some of the millions of missing persons out there were shot while in an ape suit while trying to hoax a bigfoot encounter?

You're tumbling down this path of silliness for exactly what reason? It's just a common trait of yours? Characteristic for you? A common, desperate attempt by yet another skeptic to degrade a point made by a sasquatch believer?

C'mon............admit it.............you're one of those folks from "the other" forum, aren't you? It shows like a rainbow after the rain.

So instead of answering the question like an adult you attack the person asking the question.

Lil Mak said he doesn't understand why no hoaxers have been produced. I said that if one was shot and killed it may not be produced due to the consequences to the shooter, and the shooter may decide to hide or bury the body. For that reason there is no way to prove that no hoaxers have been shot and killed.

So are you saying that no-one has ever shot and killed a hoaxer?

Edited September 25, 2010 by FuzzyGremlin

[Guest RayG]

Yes, Huntster and I are bantering back and forth. I likes ya Huntster, I really does. I try to never let a good argument get in the way of a friendship, and I'd love to kick back and wet my whistle with you someday.

Now, back to the fallacies.

RayG

[Guest alex]

So instead of answering the question like an adult you attack the person asking the question.

Lil Mak said he doesn't understand why no hoaxers have been produced. I said that if one was shot and killed it may not be produced due to the consequences to the shooter, and the shooter may decide to hide or bury the body. For that reason there is no way to prove that no hoaxers have been shot and killed.

So are you saying that no-one has ever shot and killed a hoaxer?

Again, we can say the same about sasquatch

[Huntster]

So instead of answering the question like an adult you attack the person asking the question.

You call that an "attack"?

Boo!

Lil Mak said he doesn't understand why no hoaxers have been produced.

No, he didn't. I suspect that he very well "understands" why no shot up hoaxers have been produced, like I do. What he wrote was:

Skeptics tend to say that somebody should have shot a sasquatch by now, yet why can't they explain the lack of dead hoaxer's with gunshots in their chests? I am sure, that, if these hoaxers are dressing up in costumes and scaring people, we should have found one dead by now. Care to explain for the lack of dead prankster remains?

Now, Skeptic, care to explain for the lack of dead prankster remains, or do we have to continue playing your silly game?

I said that if one was shot and killed it may not be produced due to the consequences to the shooter, and the shooter may decide to hide or bury the body. For that reason there is no way to prove that no hoaxers have been shot and killed.

And, to continue your silliness, other people have been shot, killed, and buried to hide the crime, and the crimes were solved, anyway.

Look, if there are fools dressing up in ape suits and to try to fool thousands of people from the side of the road, there is a very good chance one of them would have been shot by now, but there is not a single report of such that I know of. Do you know of any?

The obvious reason is that there are extremely few fools in ape suits trying to fool random people on the side of the road. We don't need to go into clear and obvious foolishness to admit that, do we?

So are you saying that no-one has ever shot and killed a hoaxer?

I'm writing that there is no case of such that I know of. Please show otherwise.

[Huntster]

Yes, Huntster and I are bantering back and forth. I likes ya Huntster, I really does. I try to never let a good argument get in the way of a friendship, and I'd love to kick back and wet my whistle with you someday.

I told you long ago how much respect I have for you, Ray, and I still do. You are among the most considerate and respectful skeptics there are, especially among those who participate in...........the other forum. And I have great respect for anybody who produces a family the size of yours (which is probably how you became so patient with others). A great guy, without a doubt. I'd share a campfire with you any day!

Now, back to the fallacies.

How about we focus on the possibilities and leave the silly games for others to play?