Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[LangfordBarrow]

Do you really believe that it's impossible for a person to know what they've seen? I'd like to hear you explain how you think that in detail.


Unless you're just playing a semantics game where you pretend they can't call it Bigfoot because they don't have specimens of bigfoot to compare bigfoot too. But in that case you have to state that point plainly because it sounds like you're trying to say a person can't ever know what they see.

They claim to see an animal that has never been proven to exist in any way. You can believe it was Bigfoot if you like but healthy skepticism is a good thing.

 

[Andy Capp]

Tbh, I can't say whether the earth is flat or a sphere. I'm just a guy that asks questions. This debate apparently hasn't been put to bed for whatever reason, so I'm just having some fun with it.

Nice back pedal, bitch tits.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

They claim to see an animal that has never been proven to exist in any way. You can believe it was Bigfoot if you like but healthy skepticism is a good thing.

But that sort of ducks the question and the point I think you were making, which is what I'm trying to speak about with you.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible for anyone to know what they see and that they can share what they saw but they can't say it was Bigfoot. So I'm just wondering what principal of perception you are using to deny all people's ability to know what they've seen?


Also, if a tree falls in the forest and there was no scientist there too document it did it make a sound?

 

[Copper Burner]

Nice back pedal, bitch tits.

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm shocked you would cop to that but good on ya. Now, go back and get that GED, there's a good lad.

 

[Contra-dictator]

One does not simply get smashed by Wanderlei without getting CTE......

Truest, most inarguable thing ever said in WR!

 

[Copper Burner]

I'm shocked you would cop to that but good on ya. Now, go back and get that GED, there's a good lad.

There's a dumb liberal

 

[LangfordBarrow]

But that sort of ducks the question and the point I think you were making, which is what I'm trying to speak about with you.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible for anyone to know what they see and that they can share what they saw but they can't say it was Bigfoot. So I'm just wondering what principal of perception you are using to deny all people's ability to know what they've seen?


Also, if a tree falls in the forest and there was no scientist there too document it did it make a sound?

Yeah, there's zero evidence of Bigfoot, if someone claims to have seen one then there's a burden of proof. Even just noting the location and having it analyzed.

 

[Andy Capp]

There's a dumb liberal

Again, dodge noted. Stop being useless, bitch tits.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Yeah, there's zero evidence of Bigfoot, if someone claims to have seen one then there's a burden of proof. Even just noting the location and having it analyzed.

you just ducked my questoin about a point you directly made man.

jeff meldrum has provided a ton of really good evidence for bigfoot. you might consider reading his work. he has a phd in bipedal locomotion and is head of his department at idaho state university. he has published scientific papers on the topic and written a book for the general population.

he himself has found tracks in silt that are so good that they show dermal ridges... but not pattern s associated with either homo sapiens or apes. but its not just that... there is a mid tarsal break and he has found trackways with this kind of detail. these tracks change as they cross varying substrate and physical features of the terrain. he said one track can be convincing but multiple tracks like that? cant be faked... some he found had evidence of broken feet that healed in a peculiar way known only to a couple experts in the country at the time. these tracks are not the kind of thing that could be made py a prosthetic model even of high quality. its the way the bones and the ligaments and tendons and flesh navigate the terrain that makes them convincing.

it is worth noting that debunking attempts of meldrum's work have failed miserably....

you might be a little behind on the kind of detail that goes into MANY sightings. there are data bases etc.


that is damn good evidence man.

 

[Copper Burner]

Again, dodge noted. Stop being useless, bitch tits.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

im going to share an experience i had that eventually got me interested in bigfoot as a phenomenon. it is NOT proof even to me as i did not see the thing but i had a pretty crazy encounter two times at the exact same location around midnight deep in the forest at a lake i used to hike to with freinds. i like to night hike. again not proof but its what got me interested once i learned how similar what happened to me was with the bigfoot phenomenon.

first time we were sitting by the lake (really just a small pond). we had good visibility due to moonlight which is obviously when you go night hiking so you can see. we were just enjoying the quiet evening when suddenly a large boulder was thrown from the tree line into the water on the other side of the pond. it freaked us out!! the boulder was VERY loud with lots of bass and the tree line is too far away for a human to have thrown that thing.

i yelled out that i had a gun (i did not) and we left. no big deal and i did not really think about it after that.

second one was about a month later. i was up there with three young men from my poor neighborhood who i mentored. we were sitting at the lakeside and same damn thing happened. this time i was quite a bit more freaked out. you cant camp up there and there is no way to it except to hike a couple miles to get there at midnight? and to have the SAME thing happen? it was weird...

so we got really quiet and it happened again.... these boulders had to be bigger than a basketball... i yelled out that i had a gun again (i did not again) and we left. but this time there was crashing in the trees as we left and breaking of branches and i do not mean branches i could break. these were freaking LOUD man. and whatever this was it trailed us out for a long while and the breaking got closer and closer. one kid was shaking to badly that he could hardly walk. we were terrified. i had terrible thoughts running through my head about getting some kids killed in the woods.

i had the three boys in front of me as the sound was behind us and to the left in the trees. it got closer and closer and i stooped down and picked up a rock to hit with and this is the scaredest ive ever been in my entire life.... i really thought i was going to have to fight whatever this way. it was terrible. i let out the most intense and loudest scream/battle cry i could, several of them... and then it just stopped happening and we finished our hike in peace.

a few years later i got a brand new thing called the internet and ended up on a bigfoot sight (probably bfro) and started reading accounts of what people experience and everything that happened is textbook bigfoot stuff. the place where we were was even recorded on the site as a place where bigfoot has been sighted.

i just never could get over that happening twice in a row roughly a month apart at midnight in a place accessible only by hiking with large boulders thrown way to far for a human and being trailed out like that with the violent breaking of branches.

@BearGrounds

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

he's right tho

 

[idrankyourbeer]

you understand all of NASA's "photos" are artist renditions, right?

not all of them are. this one's real

the earth is thicc.

 

[squeezewax]

We are like Truman in 'The Truman Show.' Just like him, we have been born into a false reality.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

But that sort of ducks the question and the point I think you were making, which is what I'm trying to speak about with you.

You seem to be saying that it's impossible for anyone to know what they see and that they can share what they saw but they can't say it was Bigfoot. So I'm just wondering what principal of perception you are using to deny all people's ability to know what they've seen?


Also, if a tree falls in the forest and there was no scientist there too document it did it make a sound?

Well, it is impossible for anyone to 100% "know" what they see in the philosophical sense. All we can really go by is the evidence and what's the most reasonable conclusion with the information we have. If someone believes Bigfoot exists based on the evidence they see, then okay. Others may see the same evidence and require more (like myself) to believe.

As per your tree question, how do you define sound here?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Well, it is impossible for anyone to 100% "know" what they see in the philosophical sense. All we can really go by is the evidence and what's the most reasonable conclusion with the information we have. If someone believes Bigfoot exists based on the evidence they see, then okay. Others may see the same evidence and require more (like myself) to believe.

As per your tree question, how do you define sound here?

IF some of these accounts are true and i believe they are, then any person who experienced what these people do would also believe in bigfoot.




make your point about sound and experience without the leading questions.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

this is the best channel on bigfoot i know of. this guy is intelligent, thorough and well researched. i also like him personally.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

IF some of these accounts are true and i believe they are, then any person who experienced what these people do would also believe in bigfoot.

Judging if an account is true is the entire point, people have different tolerances/burdens of proof depending on their world views. The evidence that it would take for you to believe is different from the evidence it would take for me to believe.

make your point about sound and experience without the leading questions.

I have to know how you define it. A physicist would define sound as a mechanical wave caused by a disturbance or vibration that travels through a medium, such as air, water, or solids. A neurologist would likely define sound from the perspective of how it is processed by the brain, focusing on the neurological mechanisms involved in auditory perception.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Judging if an account is true is the entire point, people have different tolerances/burdens of proof depending on their world views. The evidence that it would take for you to believe, is different from the evidence it would take for me to believe.



I have to know how you define it. A physicist would define sound as a mechanical wave caused by a disturbance or vibration that travels through a medium, such as air, water, or solids. A neurologist would likely define sound from the perspective of how it is processed by the brain, focusing on the neurological mechanisms involved in auditory perception.

i need to know how you are defining it to see how it relates to my point. or better stated i need to know what game you are playing and why.


also i have no interest in if you believe and have no interest EVER in convincing anyone of belief. its not an area i care much about or have given much thought to. also... believe in what? there are so many perspectives i would have to know what you mean.