Drew Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Given the propensity of Skeptics to contend everything, (legitimately or otherwise) that's a tall order. How bout you show us where every single eyewitness report, every single track, every single hair recovered, etc has been conclusively debunked. Because THAT'S the standard Skeptics have to meet. Proponents need only to be right ONCE. Skeptics need to be right 100% of the time. No. I will stick to the accepted standard. You give me one confirmed report. I will not go through every sighting and prove they are wrong. That is assumed, until you have one, just one that can pass muster.
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 ^IMO if your proof or evidence cant dispell reasonable doubt it doesnt mean anything. Right once wrong a hundred times still doesnt hold up. Absolutely it holds up, because it's 100% correct. Skeptics must individually debunk EVERY piece of evidence on proffer if they want to make their "no bigfoot" case. Proponents need only ONE undebunked piece of evidence and it's "game over" for the Skeptics.
Guest MikeG Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 Well, there is a logic-breakdown in that, Mulder. Just because something hasn't been debunked, doesn't mean it won't be debunked. One piece of un-debunked evidence could be one piece of not-yet-debunked "evidence". There is a vast, vast world of difference between "un-debunked" and "proven". Mike
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 No. I will stick to the accepted standard. You give me one confirmed report. I will not go through every sighting and prove they are wrong. Oh no you don't Drew...you do NOT get to pull that crap on me. YOUR SIDE makes the positive claim that all BF evidence on proffer is either the result of hoax, misidentification, or other non-BF origin. That is YOUR claim to prove. I don't have to disprove it at all. The burden of proof is on the claimant. BF proponents HAVE ponied up evidence to support their claim (tracks, hairs, etc). Skeptics have ponied up NOTHING. That is assumed, until you have one, just one that can pass muster. So it's "that's not proof, prove me wrong" now is it? Isn't that what you just refused to do? (BTW: Proponents HAVE proffered evidence you are wrong, which, as I said above, is far more than you or any other Skeptic has done). Thank you for once and for all time demonstrating that you are not "scientific", and do not engage in true "critical thinking". Well, there is a logic-breakdown in that, Mulder. Just because something hasn't been debunked, doesn't mean it won't be debunked. One piece of un-debunked evidence could be one piece of not-yet-debunked "evidence". There is a vast, vast world of difference between "un-debunked" and "proven". Mike Until a claim of "debunked" is proven, it cannot be accepted AS "debunked". It's up to the Skeptics to prove their claim, not proponents to DISprove it. And they (Skeptics) have failed to do so.
kitakaze Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3VCl3yBURs Festivus for the rest of us. It is the PERSON (Freeman) that I judge, Just because Paul Freeman was a hoaxer does not mean that all other Bigfoot evidence from others should be thrown out. Only the evidence that came from Paul Freeman should be thrown out. All of Freeman's evidence is worthless. You cannot pick and choose "legit" evidence from a hoaxer. Thank you. +1 Two different casts. One taken in California and the other in Washington and were taken 20-30 years apart. What's the likelihood that this is the same hoaxer using the same dermal ridge pattern on the foot?Some of my favorite evidence, as this would be EXTREMELY hard to fake, IMHO. Austin, you, like Ontariosquatch, are new to Bigfootery. There's nothing wrong with this as we all were once. You're talking about two of the baldest hoaxes in Bigfootery - the BCM/Onion Mountain/Bluff Creek hoax and Paul Freeman's Wrinklefoot. Just take some time to get familiar with why dermals means nothing anymore in Bigfootery... http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/dermal-ridges-and-scars/ http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) It is the PERSON (Freeman) that I judge, Just because Paul Freeman was a hoaxer does not mean that all other Bigfoot evidence from others should be thrown out. Only the evidence that came from Paul Freeman should be thrown out. All of Freeman's evidence is worthless. You cannot pick and choose "legit" evidence from a hoaxer. ^I would agree with this. Nothing Paul Freeman has looks real. They look way too similar with each other and way too different from ones that other people have. Also I no longer believe the dermal ridges are really dermal ridges. Edited July 24, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
Guest Posted July 24, 2012 Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) repeated image deleted Festivus for the rest of us. Thank you. +1 Austin, you, like Ontariosquatch, are new to Bigfootery. There's nothing wrong with this as we all were once. You're talking about two of the baldest hoaxes in Bigfootery - the BCM/Onion Mountain/Bluff Creek hoax and Paul Freeman's Wrinklefoot. Just take some time to get familiar with why dermals means nothing anymore in Bigfootery... http://orgoneresearc...dges-and-scars/ http://orgoneresearc...eview-material/ Kit, no, I'm not new to Bigfootery or anything of the sort, and for the record, while I do know that the Paul Freeman was a known hoaxer, I'm still stuck on the Freeman footage. Anyway, I was slightly misinformed on the two specific tracks that Jimmy was taking a look at. And, I think dermals can offer a good amount of evidence to tracks and things of the sort. That's my opinion, and your opinion (as well as a few others) is that it doesn't. Your opinion of my being a novice in the world of Bigfootery and thinking that dermal ridges do not make a difference is your opinion, and frankly, I don't care. Edited July 24, 2012 by MikeG ....Rule 2F. Do not post images which have been previously posted, even in quotes
Guest Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Dr. Krantz took Hardin's report apart. Hardin apparently was convinced they were fake before he saw them. That's a different LAL, Where exactly does Krantz take Hardin's report apart? Krantz has never to my knowledge ever attempted to address Hardin's observations. He very purposely never even mentions Hardin by name. Edited August 3, 2012 by willinyc
Guest Kerchak Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 (edited) Where exactly does Krantz take Hardin's report apart? Krantz has never to my knowledge ever attempted to address Hardin's observations. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence pages 79 through to 81. Krantz addressed Hardin's observations one by one from 1 to 8 (a, b, c and d), the same numbers Hardin used for his report in Cryptozoology 1984:128-134. No need to mention Hardin's name. Just his points. According to Krantz he (Hardin) " (He) judged them to be fakes. In fact he made this pronouncement before he even looked at the tracks according to three Forest Service employees who told me of overhearing this." Edited August 3, 2012 by Kerchak
Drew Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 [/font][/color] According to Krantz he (Hardin) " (He) judged them to be fakes. In fact he made this pronouncement before he even looked at the tracks according to three Forest Service employees who told me of overhearing this." He heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy?
Guest Kerchak Posted August 3, 2012 Posted August 3, 2012 Nah, he heard it from THREE guys who heard it from a guy. Pay attention.
Guest Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 "Impeachable" does not mean "impeached". Can be faked =/= faked. How bout you show us where every single eyewitness report, every single track, every single hair recovered, etc has been conclusively debunked. Because THAT'S the standard Skeptics have to meet. Proponents need only to be right ONCE. Skeptics need to be right 100% of the time. I've edited Mulder's post because I'm responding to these remarks only. Mulder, In your remarks above, you have burdened the skeptic in such a way that guarantees your belief in Bigfoot will not be refuted. This is not sound or open reasoning; it is rigging the game before it is played. You are correct in assuming "impeachable" is not the same as "impeached." But the point you make is trivial. The real issues should be laid out generally and not specifically. Since it would be impossible to verify or falsify all the so-called "evidence" for Bigfoot that you would likely present as it's defender, we need to approach the issue from a methodology that encompasses more than individual cases. I'll give an example. As an hypothetical: you present a case where a respected member of the community says he saw a large bipedal ape-like creature running across the road only a few yards from his car. You would ask, in defense of your belief in Bigfoot, how could this be anything other than an encounter with Bigfoot? The eyewitness was respectable, the creature in question close enough to rule out misidentification, etc. You trust this report and believe it is solid and a good piece of evidence verifying Bigfoot. Yet, there is really nothing in the report pertaining to Bigfoot that can be verified to be true. You either trust the eyewitness, or you do not. You may try to say that the report matches other reports and this fact gives it credence. But the skeptic may counter that other explanations are as plausible (for instance, Bigfoot imagery is part of our culture and may be factored in when discussing how the imagination may play with fleeting, surprising, anomalies--like something or someone running unexpectedly across a road on two legs.) The larger issue follows. The skeptic can point to accounts where hoaxers have confessed to donning costumes of one sort or another and convincing eyewitnesses they have seen Bigfoot. John Green recounted that a teenager, using nothing but deceptive clothing, stood in the road at night and fled whenever a car came close and was generating sighting reports of a bipedal creature moving at inhuman speed. Green said he would not have believed it if he hadn't investigated it himself. Danhinden also investigated a Bigfoot prank in which some students laid tracks near a road, later had one kid in a gorilla costume run across the road while another planted on a bus pointed out --- hey, is that Bigfoot? The bus driver stopped the bus and pursued for a better look and swore later he saw the Bigfoot up close. Law authorities were called and they found the planted tracks. Later, hoaxers confessed, and Dahinden on the scene realized it was all a hoax. So the issue is this: we have known cases where hoaxers fooled people. Even seasoned Bigfoot advocates admit this. This fact can bear directly on similar eyewitness accounts in a general way. We know that hoaxes do occur and people can be fooled. We apply these facts to similar reports and know that we cannot unequivocally endorse such reports as real accounts of Bigfoot. This does not mean that we have disproved other similar reports; it means that we are not obligated rationally to accept such reports at face value. What is lacking in your analysis of the Bigfoot question is nuance. No one needs to prove that every piece of alleged Bigfoot evidence has been falsified to come to reasonable thoughts about what may explain Bigfoot phenomena, sans a real biological entity
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted August 4, 2012 Posted August 4, 2012 I was a fool to believe plaster can pick up dermal ridges in the forest. Oh well. Life goes on...
Recommended Posts