Rampage explains how outer space is a hoax

[shockaholic12]

here is a link to NPR's Ira Flatow doing what every single person who claims to be scientifically minded and grounded should be doing. giving the evidence a fair crack and a fair hearing. Jeff Meldrum is interviewed here. this should be an example for all the priests of the new religion called scientism. notice there is no mocking or slandering or lying involved.


and here is an expert from that segment where jane goodall says she is absolutely convinced that they are real. you know the woman how bucked scientific consensus and made NEW discoveries!!

Ms. JANE GOODALL (Scientist, Cambridge University): Well now you will be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

FLATOW: You are.

Ms. GOODALL: Yeah.

FLATOW: Did you always have this belief that they're, that they existed?

Ms. GOODALL: Well, I'm a romantic so I always wanted that.

FLATOW: And there you have it. I mean I was shocked as anybody sitting here in this room…

Dr. MELDRUM: Right.

FLATOW: …talking to her about - and she just came out with this. And she does endorse on the cover of your book.

Dr. MELDRUM: Well exactly. And, you know, she revealed a couple of levels of engagement in this subject. As she mentioned, she's a romantic. Without question the topic has that side to it because, you know, the prospect of an unknown persisting into this century right here in our own back yard - I mean it does appeal to those who hope that they're still our frontiers of exploration and so forth.

But she did go on and comment the reasons for that conviction. And it was because she had talked with many people who had had experiences. She was - some of those were Native Americans who shared their traditional knowledge and their own contemporary experiences with these creatures according to their experiences.


And so, I mean that's where the science begins to enter in, I think, is where we get beyond just the stories or the romance of the subject and pose that simple biological question, is there a species of primate behind the legends of Sasquatch.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6469070

she explains in the same breath her belief is rooted in romanticism and wanting them to be real. And then the other guy claims her hearing a handful of anecdotes about it is science coming in but that's not what science is.

But sure Ira is good interviewer. This one doesn't seem convincing.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

Couldn't tell you, and I'm not even certain what they exactly are (as Apes). You'd need verifiable DNA to cross reference.

Gotcha.

How about Santa Claus? Does he exist?

 

[BearGrounds]

Gotcha.

How about Santa Claus? Does he exist?

I hope that this post is assisting your ego and making you feel smart. Clearly you need the boost.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

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

While I personally do not believe in Big foot, I suppose it is possible to have gorilla like creatures in the woods. I mean it wouldn't be impossible. Or a weirdo with a catapult. Where was this at?

On another note, finding large unknown creatures in the ocean is far more likely.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

she explains in the same breath her belief is rooted in romanticism and wanting them to be real. And then the other guy claims her hearing a handful of anecdotes about it is science coming in but that's not what science is.

But sure Ira is good interviewer. This one doesn't seem convincing.

But she does believe and she's, you know., someone who might have some experience with the subject. She believes it's really there because she's listened . Accounts of very credible people, especially native Americans. You might have left that part out. In addition, her romanticism is the reason she made a massive breakthrough for scientific investigation into primates because she didn't accept the ridiculous, a priory biases of regular scientists about how animals don't have feelings or emotions!!!


Also, she's researched Jeff Meldrums data which you didn't mention where he has those tracks which is his area of expertise. You left that part out too.

Did you omit all those facts on purpose to make the case look worse than it is? And if so, why would you do that?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

While I personally do not believe in Big foot, I suppose it is possible to have gorilla like creatures in the woods. I mean it wouldn't be impossible. Or a weirdo with a catapult. Where was this at?

On another note, finding large unknown creatures in the ocean is far more likely.

I can't remember where but somewhere in South America there was a lot of war going on and all the chimps intelligently moved to being nocturnal animals in that area to avoid the soldiers and the fighting. This isn't the case of evolution making those chimps nocturnal. It's just a case of them choosing to be nocturnal because of various reasons.

It has been suggested and observed that Bigfoot is more active at night than in the day so that would make sightings much less common and would make them happen much less often.

I don't know how much time you've spent in the woods at night. I personally have spent a great deal, even hiking and I can tell you that we are basically useless in the woods at night and if an intelligent creature wanted to stay hidden and chose to be nocturnal, we would be hard pressed to ever see them except in very rare cases.

 

[shockaholic12]

But she does believe and she's, you know., someone who might have some experience with the subject. She believes it's really there because she's listened . Accounts of very credible people, especially native Americans. You might have left that part out.


Also, she's researched Jeff Meldrums data which you didn't mention where he has those tracks which is his area of expertise. You left that part out too.

Did you omit all those facts on purpose to make the case look worse than it is? And if so, why would you do that?

She immediately attributes her belief to romanticism. In her own words she explains she believes they exist because she wants them to. She does not say she believes in them because she researched evidence and based it on critical thinking.

So, if you think the romantic idea of bigfoots being out there justifies believing they are in some hopes of manifesting them, cool. But that's not evidence of anything.

Well it is evidence of one thing, that people like Dr. Meldrum and Goodall have personal, emotional stake in this research going in one direction which if anything makes me even more skeptical of this whole interview.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

She immediately attributes her belief to romanticism. In her own words she explains she believes they exist because she wants them to. She does not say she believes in them because she researched evidence and based it on critical thinking.

So, if you think the romantic idea of bigfoots being out there justifies believing they are in some hopes of manifesting them, cool. But that's not evidence of anything.

Well it is evidence of one thing, that people like Dr. Meldrum and Goodall have personal, emotional stake in this research going in one direction which if anything makes me even more skeptical of this whole interview.

Do you believe that omitting facts about an article twice makes it true?

Or did you not read the entire article and just stop when you found what you thought was a gotcha?

I encourage you to read the whole article and not just skim it and then come back and state these facts accurately.

Do you not understand that her romanticism is something she's known for and that the world now realizes it led to a massive breakthrough and that might be some of the context for this discussion?

 

[Blayt7hh]

here is a link to NPR's Ira Flatow doing what every single person who claims to be scientifically minded and grounded should be doing. giving the evidence a fair crack and a fair hearing. Jeff Meldrum is interviewed here. this should be an example for all the priests of the new religion called scientism. notice there is no mocking or slandering or lying involved.


and here is an expert from that segment where jane goodall says she is absolutely convinced that they are real. you know the woman how bucked scientific consensus and made NEW discoveries!!

Ms. JANE GOODALL (Scientist, Cambridge University): Well now you will be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist.

FLATOW: You are.

Ms. GOODALL: Yeah.

FLATOW: Did you always have this belief that they're, that they existed?

Ms. GOODALL: Well, I'm a romantic so I always wanted that.

FLATOW: And there you have it. I mean I was shocked as anybody sitting here in this room…

Dr. MELDRUM: Right.

FLATOW: …talking to her about - and she just came out with this. And she does endorse on the cover of your book.

Dr. MELDRUM: Well exactly. And, you know, she revealed a couple of levels of engagement in this subject. As she mentioned, she's a romantic. Without question the topic has that side to it because, you know, the prospect of an unknown persisting into this century right here in our own back yard - I mean it does appeal to those who hope that they're still our frontiers of exploration and so forth.

But she did go on and comment the reasons for that conviction. And it was because she had talked with many people who had had experiences. She was - some of those were Native Americans who shared their traditional knowledge and their own contemporary experiences with these creatures according to their experiences.


And so, I mean that's where the science begins to enter in, I think, is where we get beyond just the stories or the romance of the subject and pose that simple biological question, is there a species of primate behind the legends of Sasquatch.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6469070

Ah good ol appeal to authority. Very scientific indeed.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

But she does believe and she's, you know., someone who might have some experience with the subject. She believes it's really there because she's listened . Accounts of very credible people, especially native Americans. You might have left that part out. In addition, her romanticism is the reason she made a massive breakthrough for scientific investigation into primates because she didn't accept the ridiculous, a priory biases of regular scientists about how animals don't have feelings or emotions!!!


Also, she's researched Jeff Meldrums data which you didn't mention where he has those tracks which is his area of expertise. You left that part out too.

Did you omit all those facts on purpose to make the case look worse than it is? And if so, why would you do that?

Believing them to be real, and telling everyone that she knows they are real and anyone who denies them as real is wrong are 2 completely different things.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Ah good ol appeal to authority. Very scientific indeed.

This isn't the case for belief on any level and you would know that if you would just read my posts but you never do read you just assume.

This is an example of how serious scientifically-minded people can approach fringe topics without mocking and by taking into account all of the data in a real way.

I hope this helps, but since you don't read you probably won't notice it.

 

[James Eagle]

James Eagle said:
you understand all of NASA's "photos" are artist renditions, right?

All?

One collection of pictures about exoplanets is all the photos NASA tech has ever captured?

Please admit to being this stupid so we'll all know what an utter simpleton you are and then we can just move on.

NASA admits their “photos” are artist renditions

And you still believe they are photos, Mandy

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Believing them to be real, and telling everyone that she knows they are real and anyone who denies them as real is wrong are 2 completely different things.

That's a nice change of subject, but how about we stick to the topic that you omitted facts twice in a row trying to make a ridiculous and dishonest case, probably in the name of science?

I don't even believe her perspective, just so you know. But at least we can agree.it's important to be honest about people's perspectives, can't we?

Your next move here is to apologize for omitting the facts and explain you just skimmed or to admit to yourself that you did it on purpose and change the way you post.

 

[Arashikage4Life]

Here is the problem with the "Hitler lived" postulation: there is much, much more evidence that he died in the bunker than escaped and lived. There is zero reputable evidence that he lived. He never expressed a desire to escape or even leave Berlin. Heinrich Muller is literally the only high-ranking Nazi that was never definitively accounted for, and his bones are probably lying in some unmarked grave with dozens of other unknown Wehrmacht and SS soldiers.

 

[shockaholic12]

Do you believe that omitting facts about an article twice makes it true?

Or did you not read the entire article and just stop when you found what you thought was a gotcha?

I encourage you to read the whole article and not just skim it and then come back and state these facts accurately.

Do you not understand that her romanticism is something she's known for and that the world now realizes it led to a massive breakthrough and that might be some of the context for this discussion?

I believe in taking Jane at her words when she used them to explain her belief in big foot has always been rooted in her being a romantic that wants them to be real.

 

[Blayt7hh]

This isn't the case for belief on any level and you would know that if you would just read my posts but you never do read you just assume.

This is an example of how serious scientifically-minded people can approach fringe topics without mocking and by taking into account all of the data in a real way.

I hope this helps, but since you don't read you probably won't notice it.

Invoking Jane Goodalls name is an appeal to authority.

I read your posts. You don’t like the conclusions and you seem butthurt everytime a poster doesn’t cover every point in your lengthy posts.

Here’s a question though that with some difficulty I think I’ve found the answer too. Who discovered this silver bullet of proof that Jeff has, the footprints?

 

[Arashikage4Life]

As for bigfoot, the idea that a sustainable population has existed for years and has never come into contact with larger human populations is preposterous. Large animals like this need huge food supplies (3000+ calories a day) and lots of territory to roam. If it does exist, the population is small enough to evade human contact (unlike every single other form of megafauna in the U.S. in the past 500 years) while still remaining large enough to maintain a minimum viable population without resorting to inbreeding. Even then, there is probably a lot of cousin-banging going on, which results in genetic defects that are not conducive to long-term viability of a species.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I believe in taking Jane at her words when she used them to explain her belief in big foot has always been rooted in her being a romantic that wants them to be real.

Yes, but only some of her words and not in context!!! which is a kind of lying. It's the exact kind of lying that we accuse the so-called scientifically-minded crowd in this thread of practicing.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Invoking Jane Goodalls name is an appeal to authority.

I read your posts. You don’t like the conclusions and you seem butthurt everytime a poster doesn’t cover every point in your lengthy posts.

Here’s a question though that with some difficulty I think I’ve found the answer too. Who discovered this silver bullet of proof that Jeff has, the footprints?

I didn't invoke one person's name. I invoked three NPR's ira flatow, Jeff meldrum and Jane Goodall. But I specifically stated that I invoked their names to show that scientifically-minded people can have intelligent discussions about fringed topics without mocking.

But you'll just be a lying hack and pretend otherwise to defend whatever emotional problems you have.

You would think if I was going to appeal to authority to make a specific case I would quite quote Carl Young since he actually agrees with my position, whereas these three people hold an entirely different view than I do about bigfoot's existence that is contrary to it and incompatible to it.

But this is a pattern with you... to not read and then have strong opinions in comment anyway and then to stick to your guns and pretend it was on purpose.

 

[shockaholic12]

Yes, but only some of her words and not in context!!! which is a kind of lying. It's the exact kind of lying that we accuse the so-called scientifically-minded crowd in this threat of practicing.

you literally posted this part of the interview in here yourself bud. I didn't pick this.

Of course jane finds ancedotes passed on from native americans compelling evidence, she's spelling out she's in love with the idea of them being real and always has been.