Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Mad Hom]

Can't prove there are no sasquatches out there, either. In fact, there's more evidence that they exist than there is evidence that they don't exist.

Yet, many in science believe that they don't exist.

This is basically what you and all the other Hook in Mouths have latched onto isn't it Fudd? A negative can't be proven and Bleevers love to revel in that fact with regards to Hairy Bipeds.

Never mind how implausible this alleged creature might be,never mind the shiesty circumstances surrounding it's alleged filming,never mind the fact that all the alleged "proof" is of it's passing and not of the creature itself and nevermind that all of this "proof" could have easily been hoaxed....just keep on Bleeving it's out there Fudd huh?

IMO this Bleef will continue unabated right up until the PNW is mowed down to it's last tree and even than you fanciful simps will alledge that Bigfeet is hiding behind said loneseome pine and that Science just isn't looking hard enough,dammit!!

If I wasn't laughing so hard...I'd think it sad!!

 

[Mad Hom]

All correct.

I notice you don't ask who the "scientist" was who declared these rats extinct 11 million years ago.

And another few things...

How many films of this creature were made in the 11 million years it was thought extinct?

How many footprints have we cast?

Do we have a buttprint of it?

Do we have any vocalization recordings?

Do we have a RRFRO that charged exorbitant fees to search for said rock rat?

Is there a Rock Rat Forum I can go to and discuss this discovery?

Were there thousands of spooky "a rock rat ran in front of my Yugo" stories?

Have cities in Laos,or Cambodia or wherever it was found based tourist traps around the rock rat?

Is it roughly 8ft tall,700 lbs,stinky like a slaughterhouse septic tank and does it yodel at the top of it's lungs?

........imagine that though....we found the furry little critter anyway.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :

Can't prove there are no sasquatches out there, either. In fact, there's more evidence that they exist than there is evidence that they don't exist.

Yet, many in science believe that they don't exist.

This is basically what you and all the other Hook in Mouths have latched onto isn't it Fudd? A negative can't be proven and Bleevers love to revel in that fact with regards to Hairy Bipeds.

Like I said, it's a two-way street:

The first images of a live specimen of a small, furry animal once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago have been captured during a Southeast Asian expedition led by a retired Florida State University researcher......

You can bleeve the bone collectors and their beliefs all you wish. You can even call it science if you wish.

And I'll belief what I damned well please......

Never mind how implausible this alleged creature might be,never mind the shiesty circumstances surrounding it's alleged filming,never mind the fact that all the alleged "proof" is of it's passing and not of the creature itself and nevermind that all of this "proof" could have easily been hoaxed....just keep on Bleeving it's out there Fudd huh?

Yup.

IMO this Bleef will continue unabated right up until the PNW is mowed down to it's last tree and even than you fanciful simps will alledge that Bigfeet is hiding behind said loneseome pine and that Science just isn't looking hard enough,dammit!!

So get to mowing.

If I wasn't laughing so hard...I'd think it sad!!

Don't lose bladder control.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
All correct.

I notice you don't ask who the "scientist" was who declared these rats extinct 11 million years ago.

And another few things...

How many films of this creature were made in the 11 million years it was thought extinct?

None that I know of.

How many footprints have we cast?

None that I know of.

Do we have a buttprint of it?

None that I know of.

Do we have any vocalization recordings?

None that I know of.

Do we have a RRFRO that charged exorbitant fees to search for said rock rat?

There's probably one forming as we write.

Is there a Rock Rat Forum I can go to and discuss this discovery?

There's probably one forming as we write.

Were there thousands of spooky "a rock rat ran in front of my Yugo" stories?

Do they drive Yugos in Laos?

Have cities in Laos,or Cambodia or wherever it was found based tourist traps around the rock rat?

There's probably one forming as we write.

Is it roughly 8ft tall,700 lbs,stinky like a slaughterhouse septic tank and does it yodel at the top of it's lungs?

It doesn't appear that way.

........imagine that though....we found the furry little critter anyway.

No, "we" didn't. You didn't do squat ◊◊◊◊, and neither did I.

A retired science professor sent back video images (care to speculate why this rock rat is sitting calmly on someone's palm? Why, if it is so docile, it wasn't collected years ago? Why the professor didn't find it until after retirement? Why it looks so lethargic, or even dead? Is it a hoax? Etc, etc, BS, BS?).

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like how huntster has started to appeal to ignorance now, as if it would convince people here.

 

[bruto]

Huntster could be right. Looks like a gerbil in a rock rat suit to me.

 

[LTC8K6]

I believe the rock rat was injured by the snare used to catch it.

 

[LTC8K6]

Earliest hominid not actually a hominid at all?

It's actually a quadrupedal ape....

http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2006/Jun06/r061906

ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The earliest known hominid fossil, which dates to about 7 million years ago, is actually some kind of ape, according to an international team of researchers led by the University of Michigan. The finding, they say, suggests scientists should rethink whether we actually descended from apes resembling chimpanzees, which are considered our closest relatives.

The research team concluded that the cranium did not sit atop the spine but in front of it, indicating the creature walked on all fours like an ape. Hominids, he said, are distinguished from all other primates by walking upright.

 

[Correa Neto]

"If science can't find bigfoot, its must be science's own fault, because *I* can't possibly be wrong."

Amazing.

Its always someone else's blame. Believers are never wrong or mistaken.

Bigfoot, lake monsters, UFOs, ghosts, conspiracy theories, homeopathy, its aways the same behavior. They are right and science, the system, the stabilhsment is wrong...

 

[Mad Hom]

And I'll belief what I damned well please......

Somewhere in that sentence is a hint as to what the basic problem with the Hook In Mouths is. See if you can find it Fudley?

"I'll believe what I damn well please"........exactly Fudd right up until the last tree is felled and Bigfeet has nowhere else to hide you will still Bleev. You will lament that we never had the oppurtunity to see a live specimen before it went extinct. You will bemoan science for not looking into it further when they had the chance. You will speculate along with your fellow Tru-Bleevers over at the Bigfeet Think Tank as to how Bigfeet went extinct. You will have never seen one alive or dead and still you will Bleev,because doing so makes you all warm in your loins or something.

Admit it Fuddster,Bigfeets existence in the hearts and minds of Tru-Bleevers is not dependent on facts or actual useful evidence...it's dependant on how much you Truly Bleev,isn't it?

I'll say this one more time Fudd.... If a Bigfeet is ever shot,bagged and toe tagged I will be ecstatic. Finally proof that it exists......Awesome!!

You seem to think I don't WANT it to exist...well your wrong...I do...I just don't let that fact cloud my judgement when analyzing it's possibility. You on the other hand WANT Bigfeet to exist realllllllllly,realllllllly bad and have let that get the better of ya Fudley.

Like I said.............It's SAD!!


PS- The "WE" was a euphemism Fudd. "WE" as in humanity found a Rock Rat....you semantic simp!!

PSS- Fudd has resorted to wordplay....bolding the word BELIEVE...and thinking that it matters a hill of Hairy Biped Crap in the grand scheme of things....like Jack Webb used to say ......."just the facts Fudd...just the facts"

 

[Huntster]

I like how huntster has started to appeal to ignorance now, as if it would convince people here.

An appeal to ignorance sure got a response from you.

No surprise there.

 

[Huntster]

"If science can't find bigfoot, its must be science's own fault, because *I* can't possibly be wrong."

Interesting. Who do you attribute that quote to?

Its always someone else's blame. Believers are never wrong or mistaken.

Apparently that's your opinion.

Either that or you're sarcastic and you want to intimate that science is never wrong.

Bigfoot, lake monsters, UFOs, ghosts, conspiracy theories, homeopathy, its aways the same behavior. They are right and science, the system, the stabilhsment is wrong...

Ideological apologist behavior is always the same, too. They're never wrong.

 

[Huntster]

....Admit it Fuddster,Bigfeets existence in the hearts and minds of Tru-Bleevers is not dependent on facts or actual useful evidence...it's dependant on how much you Truly Bleev,isn't it?

No, it isn't. My belief is based upon my review and judgement of the evidence.

...You seem to think I don't WANT it to exist...well your wrong...I do...I just don't let that fact cloud my judgement when analyzing it's possibility. You on the other hand WANT Bigfeet to exist realllllllllly,realllllllly bad and have let that get the better of ya Fudley....

Not at all. I accept the likelihood that they exist, and tend to argue with those who can't establish the difference between evidence and proof. Those who propound that "They do not exist" are simply in no position to claim that, and when I point that out and they try to defend their indefensible position, the argument begins.

PS- The "WE" was a euphemism Fudd. "WE" as in humanity found a Rock Rat....you semantic simp!!

You use the term we to mean "humanity". I used to term to show that you and I and everyone else here hotly debating the issue of species discovery had absolutely nothing to do with the discovery or the lack of discovery, just like in the sasquatch phenomenon.

Furthermore, this rock rat discovery story should lead to many, many questions in addition to the ones I already asked:

...care to speculate why this rock rat is sitting calmly on someone's palm?
Why, if it is so docile, it wasn't collected years ago?
Why the professor didn't find it until after retirement?
Why it looks so lethargic, or even dead?
Is it a hoax? Etc, etc, BS, BS........

If this rat was believed extinct, why did this retired professor go into the Laotian jungle to look for it?

Was he there looking for something else?

Was this "expedition" funded?

By whom?

Why would an entity fund an expedition to look for a rat believed extinct for 11 million years?

Were there reports of sightings from natives?

Were there previous photographs?

Was there other evidence that spurred this retired professor to look for this rat?

What evidence was that?

Did any of these questions occur to you, pseudo-scientist?

Got any answers? Any curiosity at all?

PSS- Fudd has resorted to wordplay....bolding the word BELIEVE...and thinking that it matters a hill of Hairy Biped Crap in the grand scheme of things....like Jack Webb used to say ......."just the facts Fudd...just the facts"

No word play. It's called "high-lighting". I want no mistake about the word, it's meaning, or who does it and doesn't do it.

 

[bruto]

No, it isn't. My belief is based upon my review and judgement of the evidence.



Not at all. I accept the likelihood that they exist, and tend to argue with those who can't establish the difference between evidence and proof. Those who propound that "They do not exist" are simply in no position to claim that, and when I point that out and they try to defend their indefensible position, the argument begins.



You use the term we to mean "humanity". I used to term to show that you and I and everyone else here hotly debating the issue of species discovery had absolutely nothing to do with the discovery or the lack of discovery, just like in the sasquatch phenomenon.

Furthermore, this rock rat discovery story should lead to many, many questions in addition to the ones I already asked:



If this rat was believed extinct, why did this retired professor go into the Laotian jungle to look for it?

Was he there looking for something else?

Was this "expedition" funded?

By whom?

Why would an entity fund an expedition to look for a rat believed extinct for 11 million years?

Were there reports of sightings from natives?

Were there previous photographs?

Was there other evidence that spurred this retired professor to look for this rat?

What evidence was that?

Did any of these questions occur to you, pseudo-scientist?

Got any answers? Any curiosity at all?



No word play. It's called "high-lighting". I want no mistake about the word, it's meaning, or who does it and doesn't do it.

Maybe the retired professor doubted the reports of extinction, and found anecdotal reports of sightings sufficiently compelling that he decided to make a search, and maybe mainstream science didn't fund the search, so he had to make it on his own. If the question is so important to you, why don't you ask him?

The difference (edited to add: assuming the report is accurate, of course, which we have not yet confirmed but are taking as a preliminary assumption) between this and similar hunts for bigfoot is, of course, the crucial one: this guy found his critter.

 

[Correa Neto]

Interesting. Who do you attribute that quote to?

Oh,you found it interesting!
But are you sure you haven't got it's real meaning?
Are you sure its an actual quote?

Here's a clue, in case you need it:
It was a conclusion based on observations.

Apparently that's your opinion.

Either that or you're sarcastic and you want to intimate that science is never wrong.

Would you mind you explaining to me how it can be inferred from my post that "science is never wrong"? Need I to remember you that no one here ever defends that "science is never wrong" for a number of reasons? Carefull not to fall in to the standard believer fallacies.

Those options are mutually exclusive?

Ideological apologist behavior is always the same, too. They're never wrong.

Who would the "they" be?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Interesting. Who do you attribute that quote to?

Oh,you found it interesting!
But are you sure you haven't got it's real meaning?
Are you sure its an actual quote?

Yeah, I found it interesting. It's a statement within quotation marks (thus, it's a quote), yet it isn't attributed to anyone.

Who are you quoting?

Here's a clue, in case you need it:
It was a conclusion based on observations.

Ah, yes: another version of your type of science.

You are free to make conclusions based on observations, attribute statements to others based on those "conclusions", yet also claim the wisdom, insight, and authority to rule evidence on sasquatch reports as valueless from the seat of your pants in front of a computer screen on a different continent, again based on your "conclusions" (which aren't even observable).

Yeah, you're some kind of scientist...............I think your kind are called "pseudo-scientists".

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ideological apologist behavior is always the same, too. They're never wrong.

Who would the "they" be?

Ideological apologists.

 

[Mad Hom]

No, it isn't. My belief is based upon my review and judgement of the evidence and is rooted in my EXTREME GULLIBILITY

There I fixed that quote for you

Not at all. I accept the likelihood that they exist, and tend to argue with those who can't establish the difference between evidence and proof. Those who propound that "They do not exist" are simply in no position to claim that, and when I point that out and they try to defend their indefensible position, the argument begins.

Fudd,those who propound "They DO exist" are also in NO position to claim anything either....yet they do....and some even make money on it. Oh and this just in....TONS of evidence? That does not equal proof.

Furthermore, this rock rat discovery story should lead to many, many questions in addition to the ones I already asked:


If this rat was believed extinct, why did this retired professor go into the Laotian jungle to look for it?

Was he there looking for something else?

Was this "expedition" funded?

By whom?

Why would an entity fund an expedition to look for a rat believed extinct for 11 million years?

Were there reports of sightings from natives?

Were there previous photographs?

Was there other evidence that spurred this retired professor to look for this rat?

What evidence was that?

Why can't we seem to find a creature 20 times the size of a rock rat,that leaves it's footprints everywhere,in a country far more modern than Laos,where everyone and their sister in law has a camera phone,in a country where hiking,camping and hunting are common activities and where many,many people are actively out looking for it?

Fixed another quote for ya Fudley.

No word play. It's called "high-lighting". I want no mistake about the word, it's meaning, or who does it and doesn't do it.

Ahhh yes Fudd you are correct sir....we believe Hairy Bipeds DO NOT exist but........we can be swayed with decent evidence if it ever comes forward.

You on the other hand BLEEV and have,as of yet not been swayed by all the crappy evidence that has.


There is a huge difference Fudster, let's try and remember that.

 

[Correa Neto]

Yeah, I found it interesting. It's a statement within quotation marks (thus, it's a quote), yet it isn't attributed to anyone.

Who are you quoting?

Oh, your semantic games.
We've been through this before.
Just like your "arguments" on the word believe.
What's your next move? Quoting a dictionary?
Anyone with minumum text interpretation skills would have understood wht I meant. Or you decided to try some obfuscation, evasion,diversion, etc.?

Ah, yes: another version of your type of science.

What exactly would be your type of science?
One that hunts for ghosts within the woods?

You are free to make conclusions based on observations, attribute statements to others based on those "conclusions", yet also claim the wisdom, insight, and authority to rule evidence on sasquatch reports as valueless from the seat of your pants in front of a computer screen on a different continent, again based on your "conclusions" (which aren't even observable).

Oh, and your evaluation of sighting reports as reliable evidence was based in exactly what?
Your "conclusions" are more observable?
Huntster, my location is irrelevant. What is relevant to the case is the weakness of the evidence presented to support the claim. If I were on China, but my conclusions were similar to yours, you would not complain about my location. Another diversion attempt, as well as another ad hominem attack noticed. Last ditch maneauver after running out of arguments?

Yeah, you're some kind of scientist...............I think your kind are called "pseudo-scientists".

Mmmhmmm... And if I lowered my standards for evidence quality to your level, then you would call me a scientist?

Can you back your statement I am a pseudo-scientist? Or its just another empty claim of yours?

Ideological apologists.

Who would them be exactly?
What ideology you have in mind exactly?

 

[LTC8K6]

There is nothing and no one preventing any scientists from looking for and studying sasquatch. Many scientists have done so. Many scientists are doing so.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

Anyone claiming that "science" is ignoring sasquatch is also a liar.

 

[bruto]

There is nothing and no one preventing any scientists from looking for and studying sasquatch. Many scientists have done so. Many scientists are doing so.

Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.

Anyone claiming that "science" is ignoring sasquatch is also a liar.

This is one of the many convenient disconnects that characterize the bigfoot community.

They can claim that research has gone badly because science ignores bigfoot, and at the same time claim credibility for casts and track analyses because the people doing it are claimed to be real scientists.