It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

page: 6
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No, Ive seen Bigfoot with my own two eyes. I'm not a believer, I'm a knower. I know that the big guy exists so I don't need skeptics or debunkers talking about something that they don't understand


Have fun with your null hypothesis.

Lots of people see things. And those things are not real. Next time get some data, some fur, some blood, actual evidence.




posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No, Ive seen Bigfoot with my own two eyes. I'm not a believer, I'm a knower. I know that the big guy exists so I don't need skeptics or debunkers talking about something that they don't understand


Have fun with your null hypothesis.


This is the same as a religious person claiming a personal audience with the almighty, or any of the other myriad claims of personal encounters with the unknown. Here in this very forum we have people claiming encounters with gnomes and pterodactyls and all kinds of crazy stuff.

While these encounters may prove sufficient evidence for them, can you understand that to other people they are meaningless without good corroborating evidence of some kind? Try and put yourselves in others shoes - would you believe you?

Even seeing is not believing. I know if I had such an encounter, I'd still question it. Because I know people are fallible beings with a thousand an one biases, some conscious most unconscious. I know that the mind can play tricks, that things like chemical imbalances or magnetic fields can have people experiencing all kinds of things that aren't really there. I know that I can make a mistake, especially if the sighting or experience wasn't a conclusive one. I'd still admit that I could be wrong.

At the end of the day, people assessing wild claims have to ask themselves, out of all the explanations available, which is more likely? To expect people to believe the least likely explanation without any corroborating evidence other than a personal anecdote is unreasonable.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   
^ Null hypothesis.

lol

edit on 20-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

No, Ive seen Bigfoot with my own two eyes. I'm not a believer, I'm a knower. I know that the big guy exists so I don't need skeptics or debunkers talking about something that they don't understand


Have fun with your null hypothesis.

And those things are not real.


Yes, they are real. You're saying they are not real and I am saying they are real. Welcome impasse.

And there is plenty of evidence. I guess you haven't taken the time to read up on it, have you? Instead you shoot first and ask questions later.

Take your blinders off.

Unless "It cannot be, therefore it isn't"
edit on 20-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
^ Null hypothesis.

lol


Indeed. Which is more likely, your story or the Null Hypothesis. I know which I will go with until your story can be proven.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
^ Null hypothesis.

lol


Indeed. Which is more likely, your story or the Null Hypothesis. I know which I will go with until your story can be proven.


I guess you didn't see the sarcasm in my post. I was making fun of you.

In other words, I don't need some ignorant skeptic telling me what isn't real when I know it is because Ive seen it


Null hypotheses.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Zero evidence. You are making baseless accusations. I have followed everything closely, and every time we have supposed evidence it turns out to be a lie, or a fake.

Animals long thought extinct people aren't even looking for turn up. Yet bigfoot many people want to find is impossible to find the smallest bit of evidence for besides shaky cameras.

Zero evidence, therefore it isn't.



posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

"It cannot be, therefore it isn't"



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

You have no retort, that's what I thought. Let me know when you post the plethora of non-existent evidence. Maybe you and Ketchum share the same problem, you found an opossum and thought it was a bigfoot.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
^ Null hypothesis.

lol


Indeed. Which is more likely, your story or the Null Hypothesis. I know which I will go with until your story can be proven.


I guess you didn't see the sarcasm in my post. I was making fun of you.

In other words, I don't need some ignorant skeptic telling me what isn't real when I know it is because Ive seen it


Null hypotheses.


So I guess we can safely conclude that you believe in leprechauns, fairies, gnomes, extant pterodactyls, angels, ghosts and Santa Claus, since you think it is rational to take wild claims at face value.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Dermal ridges.

Where's there's smoke there's fire. I would believe someone who has 30 years experience in the woods rather than some slack jawed city slicker who hasn't spent 1 hour researching.

You're not going to get a body or any scientist to admit mitochondrial dna from squatch is hybrid, Never never never. Gigantopithecus exists. You'll never get Game and Fish to admit it either.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure Marty, let me hop in my DeLorean and go back in time and get a sample from my encounter.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Is this more null hypothesis?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Dermal ridges.

Where's there's smoke there's fire. I would believe someone who has 30 years experience in the woods rather than some slack jawed city slicker who hasn't spent 1 hour researching.

You're not going to get a body or any scientist to admit mitochondrial dna from squatch is hybrid, Never never never. Gigantopithecus exists. You'll never get Game and Fish to admit it either.


Yup, exactly. I love these ignorant armchair skeptics who never get out into the field themselves.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

Actually smoke does not = fire. Bigfoot has no smoke even. It has people claiming there was a forest fire, but can't find any evidence for it. No burnt ground or anything.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

meh, ignore them. Just ignorance at its finest.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sure Marty, let me hop in my DeLorean and go back in time and get a sample from my encounter.

Awesome logical fallacy. YOU are the one who claimed there was evidence. Now you claim there is no evidence withuot a time machine?

So you agree there is zero evidence, at all, not one thing to support it. Thanks for admitting it.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's called an idiom. And yes, where there's smoke there's fire. Far too many eye witnesses trump any lack of peer reviewed hair samples.

Dermal ridges.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: Bloodydagger

meh, ignore them. Just ignorance at its finest.


The sign of defeat. You can not argue your position because it's untenable, and rather than be a man (woman) and admit it you try to weasel out and make it seem like people are just ignoring evidence.

The only ignorance is yours. It's actually impossible for me to be ignorant as there is literally nothing you have said I did not already know. You are unable to provide a single piece of evidence I was unaware of. Because there is none.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's called an idiom. And yes, where there's smoke there's fire. Far too many eye witnesses trump any lack of peer reviewed hair samples.

Dermal ridges.


How about I quote you.


originally posted by: FlySolo
pics or it didn't happen


Or do eyewitness accounts only matter on subjects you personally WANT to be true, and are meaningless in other subjects?

Thought so. Stay ignorant.




top topics



 
74
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join