The Government Just Shutdown a Bigfoot Researcher.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Rather than derail the thread I will PM you the obvious difference.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Is this more null hypothesis?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. You seem to think people should just accept your claims at your word, and I'd just like to see if you extend that mode of thinking to claims made by other people. You seem unable to or unwilling to empathise with any critical point of view with regards to your story, but how do you feel about claims made by others?

If I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my backyard, would you believe me?

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

He has already backpedaled and proven he can not be taken seriously. He goes from there is lots of evidence .. to there is none and he would get the evidence if only he had a magic time machine.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

You mean you have a closed mind to all the evidence that is out there already.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

And you have no evidence that Bigfoot does not exist.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
And there is plenty of evidence.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

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

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

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.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again, meaning and context flies over your head.

I love how you cherry picked my quotes there to suit your agenda.

And you cannot be taken seriously either. You're a proven armchair skeptic, hypocrite and a butthurt tattletale who cries to the mods when someone attacks you after you cast the first stone. You're a weasel.

can believers please clear this thread up by citing the top 3 peices of physical evidence for the existance of a clade ofnon human , bipedal primates living in north america

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Is this more null hypothesis?

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. You seem to think people should just accept your claims at your word, and I'd just like to see if you extend that mode of thinking to claims made by other people. You seem unable to or unwilling to empathise with any critical point of view with regards to your story, but how do you feel about claims made by others?

If I told you I had a fire breathing dragon in my backyard, would you believe me?

Nope, I never said someone should take what I said at face value. I don't care who believes me. But if you question someone and all but call them a liar, don't expect sugar and honey in return.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again, meaning and context flies over your head.

I understand the meaning of evidence. It seems you do not. You claimed there is plenty of evidence. I asked you to provide it. You were unable to do so.

Seems very clear to me.

There is also no evidence the government is shutting anyone down from doing research, thread should be HOAX'd.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
can believers please clear this thread up by citing the top 3 peices of physical evidence for the existance of a clade ofnon human , bipedal primates living in north america

Already asked, the response was basically there is lots of evidence, and asking for it makes you an armchair skeptic, and then if you ask again expect ad-hominems.

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.

Actually, they do not. Eye witness testimony is simply anecdotal evidence and as far as science is concerned, anecdotes aren't valued as evidence. And multiple anecdotes do not amount to evidence. A thousand people, a million people can be wrong. The plural of anecdote is not data.

As an example, look up the case of Albert Abrams. He was a medical doctor who sold devices he claimed could diagnose and cure all kinds of medical ailments. His devices were very popular and literally millions of people testified to their effectiveness. The devices worked for them and they were happy to testify to that effect. After his death, the devices were examined and shown to contain nothing but random electrical components which did absolutely nothing.

Dermal ridges.

Dessication ridges

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, you don't understand the meaning of evidence. You only believe what you read on the internet. You never get out into the field to disprove these things for yourself. You let others disprove it for you and you take their word as the gospel.

You're a typical lazy armchair skeptic. So don't sit there and pretend that you "know something" personally on the matter, because you don't. You only know what others say and think over the internet.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

and the actual physical evidence is ...............................??????????????????

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

But there are plenty of eyewitnesses out there where one would take their word over some run of the mill armchair skeptic.

How could you believe someones word who has never spent 5 seconds in the woods over a veteran woodsman or even a Ranger? The only way this happens, is if the skeptics explanation fits in with YOUR view points. Fact of the matter is that you'll believe what you want to believe as long as it fits within your own comfortable sphere and view of the world. If it defies earthly logic, then its no bueno for you.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

Ok great let's change my not understanding and only knowing what I read on the internet. Go get some PHYSICAL EVIDENCE I can look at so I am not reading online, and tell me when you got it.

I don't have to do anything, how about you get into the field and prove garden fairies don't exist you lazy armchair skeptic.

Orrrrr how about YOU are making the claim, get some evidence. What I know is there is no evidence of Bigfoot. You are just going through psychological trauma because you can't handle what you think you saw doesn't exist. You'll get through it, I just hope in 20 years when there is still zero evidence you are able to work through it.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Bloodydagger

and the actual physical evidence is ...............................??????????????????

Not forthcoming. Just ad-hominems, you armchair skeptic.

It appears belief in Bigfoot is just a religion, there is no evidence that can be produced, but you should just believe and have faith in what I say.
Some people get so tied up in their "religion" they get upset when others point out it is just based on crap and made up stories.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You're the type of person that lets others do the work for you. You're spewing things that have been spewed a thousand other times. You're a run of the mill armchair skeptic that parrots things that you read off the internet.

OMG HOAX
OMG BIGFOOT IS FAKE
OMG YOU'RE A LIAR
OMG WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE
OMG FAKE MONKEY SUITS
OMG CHEWBACCA

Can you get anymore bland? Can you say something that thousands of other armchair skeptics haven't said before you? And you want to discuss critical thinking? Well, at least I am not sitting here parroting what has been said Ad nauseam over the years.

Go find you a new skeptical website to troll and find some new ideas. You're old hat.

a reply to: Bloodydagger

How can myself, or anyone else, say anything different when the evidence for Bigfoot remains where it always was, non-existent.

Any time anyone makes a claim, regardless of what it is, the response is always the same.

Evidence?

It's as if you feel you do not need to respond to the only question that matters, and rather than answer you demand blind acceptance. Get back to me when you can answer the response. It's like you are in a cult.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger


It's as if you feel you do not need to respond to the only question that matters, and rather than answer you demand blind acceptance. Get back to me when you can answer the response. It's like you are in a cult.

Sort of like what you do when quoting me and completely ignoring my explanations? Huh, Mr Hypocrite?

Go back to parroting. Its what you do best.

OMG HOAX

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

But there are plenty of eyewitnesses out there where one would take their word over some run of the mill armchair skeptic.

How could you believe someones word who has never spent 5 seconds in the woods over a veteran woodsman or even a Ranger? The only way this happens, is if the skeptics explanation fits in with YOUR view points. Fact of the matter is that you'll believe what you want to believe as long as it fits within your own comfortable sphere and view of the world. If it defies earthly logic, then its no bueno for you.

There is no need to take anyone's word for anything, that is the whole point. Science does not value anecdotal evidence. It's worthless.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bloodydagger

Rather than derail the thread I will PM you the obvious difference.

I also see that you're not a man of your word on top of being a hypocrite and a rat. You're still here derailing this Bigfoot thread with your parroting nonsense.