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: 7
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, you are ignorant, you nothing about it. And no, you're wrong about a sign of defeat. I like many others will always be tenacious in our convictions. Just pointless arguing with flat earthers.




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


Serious question: Do you actually get out into the field to investigate Bigfoot? Do you ever go and spend days (sometimes weeks) at a time in the woods at a Bigfoot hot spot to see for yourself if Bigfoot is actually a make believe creation?

Or........

Do you simply read these things off the internet to help conclude your overall skeptic point of view? You know, kind of like how believers read about Bigfoot sightings on the internet to conclude their believer point of view? *gasp*, its the same thing. Both skeptic and believer reading what they want to read so that it fits within their overall belief system.

Meanwhile, there are those of us who actually do get out and investigate and have had sightings. But most of the time, these sightings happen when you're not investigating and just enjoying the peaceful atmosphere out in the woods.

You're nothing more than an armchair skeptic who only reads stuff off the internet that fits within your belief system. Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Wow you quoted me. Congratulations, you know how to use the quote feature. And??




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



What your doing here sounds like some kind of irrational logic. What other subjects?Like flying spaghetti monsters? Why would I care about subjects that never had any eye witnesses?? Straw man. Busted.

Dermal ridges man. Stop being so obtuse.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


Serious question: Do you actually get out into the field to investigate Bigfoot? Do you ever go and spend days (sometimes weeks) at a time in the woods at a Bigfoot hot spot to see for yourself if Bigfoot is actually a make believe creation?

Or........

Do you simply read these things off the internet to help conclude your overall skeptic point of view? You know, kind of like how believers read about Bigfoot sightings on the internet to conclude their believer point of view? *gasp*, its the same thing. Both skeptic and believer reading what they want to read so that it fits within their overall belief system.

Meanwhile, there are those of us who actually do get out and investigate and have had sightings. But most of the time, these sightings happen when you're not investigating and just enjoying the peaceful atmosphere out in the woods.

You're nothing more than an armchair skeptic who only reads stuff off the internet that fits within your belief system. Nothing more, nothing less.

You do realize you are hurting your case. There are numerous people who are constantly searching for evidence, and to date, LITERALLY NONE have ever found a thing.

I don't need to go work at CERN to look at the evidence and data they have. The difference being they have evidence.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

What you are saying RTSON is 100% correct.....if this is just a recent phenomenon with no evidence and only basically one person seeing or hearing this "creature".
BUT what you have is at least 150 years of people, 1000s of people, seeing or hearing or experiencing this creature, and expressing those experiences.
On top of that, you have at least 4 ancient cultures....the North American peoples, The Australian ancient peoples, the Nepalese/Tibetan peoples, and the Siberian peoples ALL having stories, legends, experiences of these Large hairy creatures.....for what appears...1000s of years....or since the beginning.

doubting people speak of evidence, yet many people claim to have that evidence, whether photos, video, sound recordings etc....but doubter will always cry hoax....regardless.

For 1000s of years, sailors spoke of the Kraken a giant octopus etc etc.......well it has only been the past 100 years or so, that we have had strong evidence that huge giant squid exist in the depths, as evidence by the scars of Sperm whales.
Have Any of you doubters seen a 30 foot white pointer in real life, in the ocean, right in your face.....same with any whale or whale shark, I havent, but experts tell me they exist and evidence suggests that too.
Just becuase YOU havent seen something with your own eyes, does nott mean it does'nt exist.

The TV show last year or so about the DNA testing by a top DNA English Professor, to me, asked More questions than were answered.
For instance, most "Hair" samples were of dear or brown bear or a horse etc etc.
BUT the one from the Himalayas was of quote..."Some ancient POLAR BEAR"!!!!!
Now lets just think of that for a second....a piece of fur, recently found from an observed big white hair thing, found in the Himalayas!!! was a POLAR BEAR???????? in the Himalayas!!!!?????
THis wasnt expanded on in the program, but WTH is a polar bear doing living in the Himalayas and Why hasnt it been found already?
See this is the conundrum, Is it a Polar bear then? or something else?
Where did they get "ancient Polar bear" DNA to compare this modern fibre with?
WHy hasnt it been seen more regularly....and why isnt MORE investigation done to find an Ancient Polar Bear right next to India of 1.3 billion people..?

Seems to me, if they cant find a polar bear in the snow
, they probably cant find bigfoot in the forest.
But he could still be out there regardless.



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




There are numerous people who are constantly searching for evidence, and to date, LITERALLY NONE have ever found a thing.



Define thing. What "thing" have they never found? Can you be any less specific when debating?



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

You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes there by simply saying: "Nope, I don't actually get out into the field to investigate myself. I only read about it on the internet because everything on the internet is true."

Armchair skeptic is an armchair skeptic.
edit on 21-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.





posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: gort51

Yep, but armchair skeptics choose to ignore things like that because it doesn't fit in with their overall belief system. They'll retort with null hypothesis and "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" type stuff.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Wow you quoted me. Congratulations, you know how to use the quote feature. And??




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



What your doing here sounds like some kind of irrational logic. What other subjects?Like flying spaghetti monsters? Why would I care about subjects that never had any eye witnesses?? Straw man. Busted.

Dermal ridges man. Stop being so obtuse.


Except there are tons of eyewitness accounts of miracles, such as bleeding statues, paintings, and miracles of Israel's Six Day War.

But it's not bigfoot, so eyewitness accounts don't matter here right?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

DNA, bones, hair, you know, actual evidence. Every time someone claims to have found something it turns out to be a hoax. Not only is there zero evidence Bigfoot lives today, there is zero evidence it ever existed.


Maybe if we see more rubber suits it will make it all true.
edit on 21-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: FlySolo

DNA, bones, hair, you know, actual evidence. Every time someone claims to have found something it turns out to be a hoax. Not only is there zero evidence Bigfoot lives today, there is zero evidence it ever existed.


Maybe if we see more rubber suits it will make it all true.


So says the armchair skeptic.

Did you read about those things in skeptic magazine?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Says the guy who claimed there was a mountain of evidence, then when asked to present it, said the only way to do so would require a time machine. Which is funny since Bigfoot and the DeLorean time machine have a lot in common, neither exist outside video footage.

It's simple, put up or shut up. If you want to believe then believe, I could not care less what belief another person has. Just don't lie and create made up facts.
edit on 21-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Says the guy who claimed there was a mountain of evidence, then when asked to present it, said the only way to do so would require a time machine. Which is funny since Bigfoot and the DeLorean time machine have a lot in common, neither exist outside video footage.

It's simple, put up or shut up. If you want to believe then believe, I could not care less what belief another person has. Just don't lie and create made up facts.


I wasn't a Bigfooter at the time of my encounter. I was out trapping. I didn't even know much about Bigfoot. My encounter is what got me into the subject. Evidence? That was the furthest thing from my mind at the time. I was scared straight and not thinking clearly, not to mention, I knew nothing of how to go about gathering evidence at the time because it was something new to me altogether. So yes, if you think I should have gotten some evidence from that encounter, go find me a DeLorean. Hindsight is 20/20.

I guess the overall context of what someone is trying to say flies over your head. No wonder you're a skeptic. Its easier to be a skeptic and it doesn't require a lot of thinking because "It cannot be, therefore it isn't" - You seem dumber than a sack of bricks.

Also, I found you some more internet reading material Mr Armchair skeptic: Have Fun
edit on 21-1-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodydagger

I did not ask for evidence from your personal encounter. I asked for ANY evidence from any of the thousands of encounters / researchers scouring for evidence for years.

You just posted a link that says Bigfoot is not real and here is why .. and lists a number of great reasons. One of us has an IQ of genius level, and it's not the guy who keeps repeating the same strawman (in case you missed it, that's you). Next ad-hominem you throw my way will be reported. Just because you have no argument doesn't mean you get to be insulting.
edit on 21-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger

I did not ask for evidence from your personal encounter. I asked for ANY evidence from any of the thousands of encounters / researchers scouring for evidence for years.

You just posted a link that says Bigfoot is not real and here is why .. and lists a number of great reasons.


Yep, I posted that link for you to help you out because you're an armchair skeptic. I figured it would further add to your overall skeptical point of view. I'm a nice guy that way.

Anyway, a lot of encounters are like mine over the years. Its people out in the woods with no intention of seeing or finding a Bigfoot. Its people that do not have Bigfoot on the mind or even understand what Bigfoot is. In other words, I'd venture a guess that 95% of the sightings are people going into the situation fully unprepared. You also hear stories of people in vehicles seeing Bigfoot crossing the road on some remote backwoods road. There are a lot of instances where gathering evidence either isn't possible, or its something that the people witnessing the situation are not prepared for. Maybe you're someone who has never even heard of Bigfoot and see him. Evidence and Bigfoot wouldn't even be in this persons vocabulary.

The only way to get evidence is via Bigfooters. The BFRO or some other organization that goes into these hot spots specifically looking for Bigfoot. "Chance encounters" by someone will not net any evidence because its not in the overall mindset/framework of the situation.

Any believer would take Jeff Meldrum's word over any skeptics. Meldrum's word is pure gold on the subject.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Any believer would take Jeff Meldrum's word over any skeptics. Meldrum's word is pure gold on the subject.

I think it's great he is examining evidence. When he finds evidence I will be interested in it. So far he has none.

Bigfoot tracks are about as conclusive as crop circles. Both easily faked.

There is zero evidence. If you want to believe it's fine. Just don't lie and claim there is evidence, it doesn't exist.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Next ad-hominem you throw my way will be reported. Just because you have no argument doesn't mean you get to be insulting.


Pot meet kettle:


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.



Thought so. Stay ignorant.


You can dish it out, but can't take it huh?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Next ad-hominem you throw my way will be reported. Just because you have no argument doesn't mean you get to be insulting.


Pot meet kettle:


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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.



Thought so. Stay ignorant.


You can dish it out, but can't take it huh?

Only one is an ad-hominem. I will give you a few minutes to figure out why on your own, if you are unable to let me know and I will fill you in.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So not only are you a lazy armchair skeptic, you're also a hypocrite. Nice credentials there.

Report that.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join