Merged Bigfoot follies

[OntarioSquatch]

How come they are paranoid?

 

[Resume]

How come they are paranoid?

A 15ft Sasquatch for one.

 

[Jodie]

How come they are paranoid?

I don't really know OS, but I suspect it has to do with toting the staus quo for whatever the bigfoot belief is at the time. Controlling information is a common tactic to protect a vested interest, an interest that at this point, can be profitable either montarily or by feeding the ego of insecure people.

 

[RedRatSnake]

This person misses quite a bit.

It is kinda ironic for me cause back in the day when I had my window at being a big shot on that forum I am sure I did the same thing, I would pounce on those that threatened the all mighty monkey and try to protect the forum using what footers wanted to hear, Mulder used to be a friend of sorts at the time, To bad he didn't learn anything over the years and wise up to what's really going on.
I guess that is the sort of behavior that feeds the BF machine, looking back I am humiliated at times knowing I was part of it ~

Tim

 

[RedRatSnake]

Love It ~ Cool reply from someone that is thinking over there.

NukaCola

Booger
Members
26 posts

Posted Today, 08:24 PM

View PostMulder, on 16 February 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:
As I predicted some time ago:
Yep, as predicted (mostly by Parnassus I think?)

Quote
1) Ketchum probably has DNA indicative of a new primate species.
False.

Quote
2) Ketchum over-claimed her paper, which also had some technical issues.
True.

Quote
3) "Legitimate" (translation: Skeptic-approved) journals didn't take it seriously from the get go and she had to go around them to publish.
True.

Quote
4) Skeptics are having a field day screeching and throwing poo at the study, which they have no intention of actually reading, or attempting any scientific work to counter the claims of the study.
False.
Several knowledgeable individuals have read and commented on the "study".
There is no need for 'scientific work to counter the claims', as there is no data provided indicating support of the conclusions drawn by Ketchum. What is present is nonsense.

Quote
Have I missed anything?
Lots. Especially those pesky little details that science finds so interesting...

Quote
The next step needs to be "naming and shaming" all the so-called "legitimate" journals and reviewers who failed their duty to honestly and ethically evaluate the paper in an impartial manner.
LOL. Yes, I agree, lets see all the return letters and review notes. Please.

 

[HarryHenderson]

NukaCola is obviously a JREF proxy. Game-set-match in less than 80 words. Although to be fair, ****** is delusional. Which explains his contempt for 'fact-based' science. He's so past the Bigfoot hope, he's fully into the Bigfoot need. Bigfoot needs to exist because if it doesn't, that would mean he was wrong and, whoops, science was right. You can't make anyone else eat crow if you've already ate it all.

IMO, his biggest 'delusion' isn't his silly belief in Bigfoot. It's his (obviously) baseless paranoid fear that "legitimate/skeptic approved" science would somehow be uninterested in or even cruelly indifferent to the find of the millennium in a real Bigfoot. As if the scientific approval of an amateur hallucinatory 'paper', or science in general, has an actual say in the genuine existence of any of the cosmos' real beasts anyway. Giraffes don't 'exist' because some 'legitimate' scientists somewhere finally got around to writing and approving some suspicious 'paper' about Giraffes. I can attest to the fact that I've never once read an approved or unapproved scientific paper that proves or disproves Giraffes exist - nor am I aware of any DNA testing that's been done on them to do the same - yet somehow someway I know they exist. How could I possibly know that?

 

[Jodie]

Because you saw a giraffe, Mulder thinks he saw a bigfoot.

 

[tsig]

It is kinda ironic for me cause back in the day when I had my window at being a big shot on that forum I am sure I did the same thing, I would pounce on those that threatened the all mighty monkey and try to protect the forum using what footers wanted to hear, Mulder used to be a friend of sorts at the time, To bad he didn't learn anything over the years and wise up to what's really going on.
I guess that is the sort of behavior that feeds the BF machine, looking back I am humiliated at times knowing I was part of it ~

Tim

We only grow by acknowledging our mistakes.

 

[RedRatSnake]

I don't mind admitting I was messed up on stuff, I came here a few years ago after I left the first carnation of the monkey forum cause of administration problems and the knowledge that Mr Bigfoot was indeed just a product of people and not nature, I got my ass handed to me here but kept going, the best anyone can do is try and shoot straight and be honest as possible, I think I got most of that in hand, sure I can never remember all my 8000 posts and what they were about, but I am always happy to explain them to the best of my recollection ~

Tim

 

[OntarioSquatch]

I think it's important for people who study subjects like Bigfoot to stop and take a look at their willingness to believe in things. With Bigfoot, it seems people want to believe in stuff rather than try to find out the truth. I had a problem with this when I first got into Bigfootery. Now I see that it's mostly bs, except for maybe a few things such as the Patterson film. Everybody makes mistakes sometimes and just like tsig says, it's part of how we grow.

 

[GT/CS]

Have you read Greg Long's book yet?

 

[William Parcher]

OS, would you say that it must be proven that Bigfoot doesn't exist in order for the nonexistence of Bigfoot to be taken as fact in society as well as science?

For example, we have not proven that all those big dinosaurs are extinct but yet their nonexistence (as living creatures) is widely accepted as fact. Or is Bigfoot somehow different and needs to be treated differently?

 

[William Parcher]

With Bigfoot, it seems people want to believe in stuff rather than try to find out the truth.

More on this...

If Bigfoot doesn't exist then "the truth" cannot ever be found. That is unless we can find a way to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist, right? Or maybe we will accept that Bigfoot doesn't exist (as a kind of fact) even though we don't have proof. We did that for dragons, mermaids, unicorns, etc. We decided that they do not exist as a fact even though we can't prove it.

Are we really going to have to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist in order to get all of society on one side of the fence as we are now with mermaids?

 

[Jodie]

Mermaid sightings are few and far between, when bigfoot sightings start slacking off then bigfoot will be relegated to the same status.

 

[RedRatSnake]

Are we really going to have to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist in order to get all of society on one side of the fence as we are now with mermaids?

I have to meddle in this post, After a day of fishing, drinking and getting blasted with the sun in a boat with a bunch of smelly drunk obnoxious guys gutting fish all day, coming back to port and seeing even the homeliest of women could make a guy believe in Mermaids~


Tim

 

[OntarioSquatch]

OS, would you say that it must be proven that Bigfoot doesn't exist in order for the nonexistence of Bigfoot to be taken as fact in society as well as science?

For example, we have not proven that all those big dinosaurs are extinct but yet their nonexistence (as living creatures) is widely accepted as fact. Or is Bigfoot somehow different and needs to be treated differently?

When a fossil record can be compared to today's known species, scientists can figure out if a particular species went extinct or not. We don't have a fossil record of every species. This leaves the door open to the possibility of undocumented animals living on planet earth. And there are. We have proof that dinosaurs don't exist, but do we have proof that an uncatalogued ape doesn't exist?

 

[captain koolaid]

...We have proof that dinosaurs don't exist...

Say what?

 

[dafydd]

When a fossil record can be compared to today's known species, scientists can figure out if a particular species went extinct or not. We don't have a fossil record of every species. This leaves the door open to the possibility of undocumented animals living on planet earth. And there are. We have proof that dinosaurs don't exist, but do we have proof that an uncatalogued ape doesn't exist?

Yes, dinosaurs are undocumented. They were invented by Hollywood for the Jurassic Park movie. Fictional creatures, just like Bigfoot.

 

[Resume]

Love It ~ Cool reply from someone that is thinking over there.

NukaCola

Booger
Members
26 posts

Posted Today, 08:24 PM

View PostMulder, on 16 February 2013 - 04:44 PM . . .

Quote
The next step needs to be "naming and shaming" all the so-called "legitimate" journals and reviewers who failed their duty to honestly and ethically evaluate the paper in an impartial manner.
LOL. Yes, I agree, lets see all the return letters and review notes. Please.

Name and shame? Yes, that's how scientific discovery is done. Just hilarious.

 

[The Shrike]

Because you saw a giraffe, Mulder thinks he saw a bigfoot.

Well, he says that he saw a bigfoot. I can't think of anyone more likely to invent a sighting story whole cloth just to be able to join the fraternity of "knowers."