Jump to content

Debunk The Debunking


Recommended Posts

Incorrigible1

I am not a skeptic.

I am highly dubious of those claiming special knowledge, and claiming the creatures are impossible to photograph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a skeptic.

I am highly dubious of those claiming special knowledge, and claiming the creatures are impossible to photograph.

I am with you on this Incorrigible1. If they exist and I believe they do, they are flesh-and-blood animals bound by the same patterns of biology and behavior as all other animals (including us). I would be interested to see trailcam photos of other rare/low population density animals, in extremely remote locations (similar to the most reasonable BF habitat) to show it does in fact happen, otherwise absence of trailcam photos of BF is another red herring IMO.

I personally do find the lack of definitive body troublesome (this includes fossil record, recentl kills/death from natural causes, roadkill, etc.) but not completely inexplicable as each of the above issues require some very happy circumstances to occur in order for any one to actually happen in the first place, and then be discovered in the second.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is textbook moving goalposts, which has been my primary point.

You can say so, but that doesn't make it so. Clarifying a position - especially in response to an open-ended statement like your "all known animals" - is not moving goalposts. It's simply an attempt to more precisely state intent for the purpose of discussion. If you're implying willful dishonesty in my posts for the purpose of scoring non-existent rhetorical points, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't play debating games, I present facts and offer opinions. If you've got some information that something I've presented as factual is in error, then I'm happy to consider it and amend my opinion as necessary. So far, I haven't seen that.

So, if you're interested in furthering discussion, which of the species on my list do you think is unconfirmed as roadkill? Please be specific.

Please understand that if my position about bigfoot and roadkill is not supported by data on other species I would expect among roadkills, I will change my position. That's what science does - it follows the evidence. So far at least, I've seen nothing in this thread to make me reconsider that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see humor in it. I'm trying to engage in an adult discussion on the topic. If you cannot do that, then I am sorry for you.

No, I think it's the other way around. I feel sorry for you if you can't laugh at yourself and by that I mean all of us, including myself, who are enjoying this assinine conversation, not adult conversation.

You seem to be into splitting hairs, so I just wanted to point out that escaped domesticated animals getting hit by cars is probably about as frequent as when it happens to bigfoot. That makes it relevant as a variable. How many of those domesticated animals walked or ran away after being hit by a car? I will look at stats later, for some reason I can't open multiple windows on my computer while I am work.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sas, please slow down and listen to what I am saying.

I am not disputing any verifiable fact, I am disputing personal opinion, stated as fact, that has been revised from 'only BF is immune unlike all other wildlife' to what is now, finally, a defensible position listing 12-18 specific species.

I have also pointed out the change from 'roadkill' to 'roadkill with a recoverable body', and the change from 'any' collisions to 'collisions with a recoverable body'.

These are not examples of simple maturation of an argument, they are signficant changes in the discussion which occurred when the assertions were challenged and shown to be specious.

There is nothing to discuss about the bracketed list from my point of view - I was pointing out the logical flaw in the initial and subsequent positions which were opinions stated as fact, not facts themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How many of those domesticated animals walked or ran away after being hit by a car?"

I have been in the vehicle or watching when horses,cattle, sheep, dogs, cats, deer, antelope (those two are not domestic) were hit. Only one horse ever got up and walked away after totaling the car I was driving.

NS

Link to post
Share on other sites

enjoying this assinine conversation, not adult conversation.

It could be an adult conversation . . .

You seem to be into splitting hairs, so I just wanted to point out that escaped domesticated animals getting hit by cars is probably about as frequent as when it happens to bigfoot.

I think it'll be pretty easy to demonstrate both fatal and non-fatal collisions with loose horses and cattle. It's all that other livestock (goats, sheep, pigs, etc.) where I think it gets a bit muddy.

Obviously, a light bump between an Angus bull and a Toyota Yaris isn't necessarily going to end in disaster for the Angus. Some collisions will end in fatality; others won't. I don't see that point disputed by anyone here.

Sadly, this'll be my last post on this thread 'til probably Monday. I'm off to the field for the weekend. As always, I'll keep my eyes peeled for bigfoots en route.

~Saskeptic

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

The African oryx was introduced into New Mexico in 1969. Their population number a few thousand. I've searched but not found any official roadkill reports. I don't doubt a few of these large antelope have been struck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not disputing any verifiable fact, I am disputing personal opinion, stated as fact, that has been revised from 'only BF is immune unlike all other wildlife' to what is now, finally, a defensible position listing 12-18 specific species.

Yes but the opinion you charged was stated as fact was in itself a classic strawman. Here's your post #152:

"Is it actually the skeptics' position that there is roadkill evidence for every single 'known' animal? Without exception, every single 'known' animal has not only been struck by a car but a body has been recovered. Is that the actual argument? "

You're trying to cast as "opinions stated as facts" things that were never even clearly presented as anyone's opinion.

I have also pointed out the change from 'roadkill' to 'roadkill with a recoverable body', and the change from 'any' collisions to 'collisions with a recoverable body'.

Do you think that an anecdote about roadkill and proof that the roadkill happened are interchangeable? I don't.

The "collisions" vs "body parts" evolved from a separate discussion on the likelihood of a bigfoot dying if it was struck by a car.

OK, that'll have to be my last post for a bit. Gotta run!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

If they exist and I believe they do, they are flesh-and-blood animals bound by the same patterns of biology and behavior as all other animals (including us).

Since there has been no body & no proof that "they are bound by the same patterns of biology and behavior as all other animals", how can you seriously make this statement?

There is a lot of evidence that they exist, but where is the evidence to back up your statement as to what they are bound by?

Never mind the bears, lions, deer, etc. Bigfoot is not those animals & is not necessarily bound by their patterns of biology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am speaking here to the more Fortean, extra-biological or supernatural claims Sasfooty. Talking about basic biology, possibility of injury or disease, and patterns of primate behavior (if, as I do, you believe they fall somewhere in the primate family and not with bear for example) - there are established rules for the various different animal familes of basic biology, morphology, and behavior - could well be some variability from known animals for sure, but they are not going to have gills, have eyes in the back of their heads, have two hearts, have musculature that defy the law of physics - things like that.

I make this statement to clarify my own position, that I do not accept they can do things other animals cannot do (in the general, like levitate, jump in ways that defy physics, dematerialize, etc.) - because it is these Fortean, extra-biological or supernatural claims that do as much damage, in my opinion (if that is the right term) to the cause of trying to convince the Scientific Body Politic that there is a currently uncataloged animal responsible for what we call BF, as does the lack of a type specimen.

Hope that helps.

ETA: I know that this position will put me at odds with some proponents of BF's existence. I am passing no personal judgement on those claims or experiences other than to say I do not accept them in my own work. I will never tell anyone they did not hear, see, or smell what they said they saw, heard or smelled. But I do not include these claims in the body of evidence that I consider for my position.

Edited by infoman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sasfooty

I make this statement to clarify my own position, that I do not accept they can do things other animals cannot do (in the general, like levitate, jump in ways that defy physics, dematerialize, etc.)

Why do you not accept it? If other creatures are known to do some of those things, why is it not possible that BF can do them, too?

- because it is these Fortean, extra-biological or supernatural claims that do as much damage, in my opinion (if that is the right term) to the cause of trying to convince the Scientific Body Politic that there is a currently uncataloged animal responsible for what we call BF, as does the lack of a type specimen.

This is hilarious!!! Are you saying that no matter what we observe & know, we have to hide it, & pretend it doesn't exist, so as not to scare off the scientists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Why do you not accept it? If other creatures are known to do some of those things, why is it not possible that BF can do them, too?

What creatures are known to levitate, jump in ways that defy physics, dematerialize, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st, I did not say if other animals 'can' do something, only if they 'can't'.

2nd, I am only saying I do not include these claims and experiences in the body of evidence I use.

To help clarify, I have stated in other posts that I am basically interested in and am examining patterns because I come from an Engineering background. The more Fortean/supernatural claims are fairly recent developments and are typically associated with habituation claims which I also find problematic since they cannot yet be verified/corroborated, have been subject to significant hoaxing IMO (e.g., Carter Farm), and they do not themselves expose a verifiable pattern of morphology or behavior, first among themselves, and second with comparison to the more mainstream understanding of BF, and lastly by comparison to other known animals.

I do believe that more extravagant claims of this nature are part of why this particular subject is dismissed by the mainstream Scentific Body Politic.

That said, I do not require the acceptance of BF by the Scientific Body Politic, because I am already convinced that BF exists. I also do not require agreement with you or anyone else, as to what I believe or don't believe, and don't think you should care what I believe either.

But, I do believe they are flesh-and-blood animals bound by the same basic rules as other animals.

I am not telling you or anyone else what you have seen, heard or smelled, nor I am I telling you or anyone else how to go about your own business, or your own efforts here or anywhere - just clarifying my own position and my own approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...