I'm not going to feed into your ignorance.
Hostility and lack of knowledge/information is never a good combination.
The mods don't seem to have an issue with my point of view, it seems like YOU have an issue with it.
-Nate
Holy crap, Bigfoot and Chupacabra proof?
- Thread starter 357wheelgunner
- Start date
Hostility and lack of knowledge/information is never a good combination.
The mods don't seem to have an issue with my point of view, it seems like YOU have an issue with it.
-Nate
So now you're calling me stupid?
No. you lack knowledge in this specific category. If you continue adding your own meaning to everything I say, you will appear 'stupid'. I would call you stubborn and argumentative, though.
-Nate
Coming from the guy who said there isn't enough food for them out there and you can make fake foot prints out of toy shop stuff. Maybe you lack knowledge in the subject.TBH
Listen buddy,
TBH
I don't know who you think I am, but if you want to attempt to degrade me in public, we will have some serious issues.
Get me the FBI report, mouthpiece.
-Nate
Know what mate? I'm done with you.
TBH
so I guess there is not gonna be an FBI report coming?
Don't think you damaged my integrity, you damaged your own with your ignorance and childish behavior.
Have a great one.
When you have some substantiated information, or when you lose your pompous arrogance, feel free to resume communication with me.
-Nate
p.s.
TBH... lol
Don't think you damaged my integrity, you damaged your own with your ignorance and childish behavior.
Have a great one.
When you have some substantiated information, or when you lose your pompous arrogance, feel free to resume communication with me.
-Nate
p.s.
TBH... lol
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,863
First off Nate, get your panties out of a bunch and drop the arrogance. Its a discussion and it was going pretty good till you started throwing a hissy fit.
http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp
Thats the link for the documentary I was discussing. there is no FBI report because last I checked the FBI didn't investigate anomalous apes. It was a finger and foot print expert used by law enforcement. And further, if you can make a plaster cast with dermal ridges intact, you are a master craftsman in the medium of plaster of paris.
You wanted proof, I provided what I and other members of the scientific community consider proof that there MAY BE a large unknown animal walking around the Pacific Northwest.
http://www.bfro.net/LMS/LMS.asp
Thats the link for the documentary I was discussing. there is no FBI report because last I checked the FBI didn't investigate anomalous apes. It was a finger and foot print expert used by law enforcement. And further, if you can make a plaster cast with dermal ridges intact, you are a master craftsman in the medium of plaster of paris.
You wanted proof, I provided what I and other members of the scientific community consider proof that there MAY BE a large unknown animal walking around the Pacific Northwest.
wheres the arrogance?
I stated my opinion. The thread was going great until buddy boy started bashing me for my opinion.
I'll 'straighten out my panties' when you re read the thread.
-Nate
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,863
Re read the thread. Still no apologies coming. I would avoid The Watering Hole if I were you. May give you an ulcer.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,497
Well, I'm on the fence when it comes to cryptozoology, although at heart I'm a skeptic. But it occurs to me that the FBI isn't who hoaxsters have to try to convince. No, all they need to do is convince the media, and now with the internet having become such a prevalent force in distributing information, convince Joe Sixpack at home watching YouTube.
Skeptics have it tough. Because as pointed out earlier, you can't prove a negative. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, let alone Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster.
Carl Sagan illustrates this point quite well in The Demon Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark. I'll try to paraphrase from memory...
Suppose I claimed that I had a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. You would be astounded, and be very interested in seeing it. So I take you to my garage. Upon entry, you look around and just see all the usual garage stuff. Old toys, boxes of clothing, last season's Christmas lights, maybe even a car.
"I don't see a dragon" you would understandably comment.
Oh, well, I should have mentioned, it's an invisible fire breathing dragon." I'd hastily explain.
You: "Oh, okay. Well, let's just sprinkle some flour on the floor, at least I'd get to see it's footprints."
Me: "No, we can't do that. It floats.
You. Floats? You didn't mention that either. Oh well, I'll just use one of your cans of spray paint on him and his invisible form should appear, right?
Me: Nope, sorry. He's an incorporeal, invisible, floating, fire-breathing dragon. The paint wont stick.
You:"Arrghh! Okay, what if I went home ind got my infrared goggles, I should be able to at least see the fire he breathes."
Me: Yeah, that would work. Except that he breathes magical fire. No heat involved.
So, Sagan goes on to ask this question: What would be the difference between an incorporeal, invisible, floating fire-breathing dragon and no dragon at all?
And then he proposes that if things had gone otherwise, if footprints did appear in the flour, if spray paint did reveal some sort of body part or if dome sort of infrared signature was present, then you would have to admit that SOMETHING, even if it isn't exactly what I say it is, is going on.
This goes on for a whole chapter, with Sagan looking at both sides of the coin. I suggest finding the book and reading it. But the point is that for some reason, believers of extraordinary things think the burden a proof somehow falls upon the skeptic. But somebody once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I believe this to be true.
So, I guess it doesn't matter to me whether or not there is enough food for a bigfoot in the Pacific north-west or if they have to resort to Starbucks to survive, or if they are C.H.U.D.s or just really good at the art of not being seen, I'll remain skeptical.
I agree with the view that there are enough red-neck hunters out there that if Bigfoot did exist, somebody would have blasted him and hauled him into a game checking station by now. (Which, depending on how the creature would be classified, opens an ethical debate: Killing Bigfoot=homicide?)
I'll finish this up with what I thought was a pretty good assessment by a fellow posting about the matter on another board:
Every year a thousand professional photographers will head out into woods of Washington State. 3 of them will take the first blurry picture they've ever taken in their lives of a bigfoot. These are the same guys who can take a picture of a buck on a ridge 5 miles away and have it look like it's right in front of them. But their bigfoot picture will be blurry.
During this same year 100,000 hunters will enter the woods with high powered rifles. None of them will ever see a bigfoot. Bigfoot will only be seen by professional photographers who are about to take the first blurry picture of their life. Sounds plausible to me.
Skeptics have it tough. Because as pointed out earlier, you can't prove a negative. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist, let alone Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster.
Carl Sagan illustrates this point quite well in The Demon Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark. I'll try to paraphrase from memory...
Suppose I claimed that I had a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. You would be astounded, and be very interested in seeing it. So I take you to my garage. Upon entry, you look around and just see all the usual garage stuff. Old toys, boxes of clothing, last season's Christmas lights, maybe even a car.
"I don't see a dragon" you would understandably comment.
Oh, well, I should have mentioned, it's an invisible fire breathing dragon." I'd hastily explain.
You: "Oh, okay. Well, let's just sprinkle some flour on the floor, at least I'd get to see it's footprints."
Me: "No, we can't do that. It floats.
You. Floats? You didn't mention that either. Oh well, I'll just use one of your cans of spray paint on him and his invisible form should appear, right?
Me: Nope, sorry. He's an incorporeal, invisible, floating, fire-breathing dragon. The paint wont stick.
You:"Arrghh! Okay, what if I went home ind got my infrared goggles, I should be able to at least see the fire he breathes."
Me: Yeah, that would work. Except that he breathes magical fire. No heat involved.
So, Sagan goes on to ask this question: What would be the difference between an incorporeal, invisible, floating fire-breathing dragon and no dragon at all?
And then he proposes that if things had gone otherwise, if footprints did appear in the flour, if spray paint did reveal some sort of body part or if dome sort of infrared signature was present, then you would have to admit that SOMETHING, even if it isn't exactly what I say it is, is going on.
This goes on for a whole chapter, with Sagan looking at both sides of the coin. I suggest finding the book and reading it. But the point is that for some reason, believers of extraordinary things think the burden a proof somehow falls upon the skeptic. But somebody once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I believe this to be true.
So, I guess it doesn't matter to me whether or not there is enough food for a bigfoot in the Pacific north-west or if they have to resort to Starbucks to survive, or if they are C.H.U.D.s or just really good at the art of not being seen, I'll remain skeptical.
I agree with the view that there are enough red-neck hunters out there that if Bigfoot did exist, somebody would have blasted him and hauled him into a game checking station by now. (Which, depending on how the creature would be classified, opens an ethical debate: Killing Bigfoot=homicide?)
I'll finish this up with what I thought was a pretty good assessment by a fellow posting about the matter on another board:
Every year a thousand professional photographers will head out into woods of Washington State. 3 of them will take the first blurry picture they've ever taken in their lives of a bigfoot. These are the same guys who can take a picture of a buck on a ridge 5 miles away and have it look like it's right in front of them. But their bigfoot picture will be blurry.
During this same year 100,000 hunters will enter the woods with high powered rifles. None of them will ever see a bigfoot. Bigfoot will only be seen by professional photographers who are about to take the first blurry picture of their life. Sounds plausible to me.
I was never looking for an apology.
Since when is an opinion wrong?
You found information to support your opinion, I found information to support mine... so how do I appear 'arrogant', and you get away unscathed?
-Nate
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 477
I once saw a preserved foot from a bigfoot in Nepal. It was about two and a half feet long. Very believable, IMHO.
It's all true! The Invisible Pink Unicorn told me so!!;P
It's all true! The Invisible Pink Unicorn told me so!!;P
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,497
The invisible pink unicorn does not exist!
Not anymore, anyway. The floating invisible incorporeal fire-breathing dragon ate him.
Not anymore, anyway. The floating invisible incorporeal fire-breathing dragon ate him.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 477
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 971
well has he told you anything recently?
cuz if not maybe he did get eaten
or maybe he has a special unicorn holiday
cuz if not maybe he did get eaten
or maybe he has a special unicorn holiday
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,497
Oh sure! Ask me to prove it AFTER the floating invisible incorporeal fire-breathing dragon has eaten it!