Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martin

For " The Record "

Recommended Posts

Martin

Tontar is a valuable asset to this topic.

His posts are well thought out and clearly written.

Without him this topic becomes an echo chamber.

While I'm sure that's what some of you want, I would hope that you would reconsider.

Strong arguments each way make this discussion better.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Do you honestly think the skeptical argument is so weak it would fall if Tontar was gone? :sarcastic:

Geez man. Try giving people more credit than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Rogue....

Ask yourself this...........

How many of Sweati Yeti's posts have you plussed?

How many of Tontar's?

I'm not even sure you can admit that Tontar made one legitimate point in hundreds of posts regarding the PGF.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I'll plus anybody who gives a good debate.

Tontar spends most of his time psychoanalyzing everything under the sun rather than debating. So unless I have the time to sit back and read a novel, I usually just scroll through them.

When it comes to debate there's always somebody here up for the challenge, so I don't see what the problem is.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wudewasa

I don't want a debate, I want the facts, I want the truth.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Plus wude :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Title of this thread should read "In my opinion"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I don't want a debate, I want the facts, I want the truth.

Well sure, but we have very little facts to go off of and a whole lot of speculation. You're not going to pull truth or create more facts from that. Unless something new comes to light there's nothing to do but debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Martin, I'm guessing this is an appraisal/appreciation thread for Tontar? Not really needed, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Do you honestly think the skeptical argument is so weak it would fall if Tontar was gone? :sarcastic:

Geez man. Try giving people more credit than that.

He lost me at "Tontar" + "valuable asset" in the same sentence...

As for the value of the Skeptic argument with Tontar's addition, let's do the math: nuthin' plus nuthin...into nuthin...carry the nuthin..."

I don't want a debate, I want the facts, I want the truth.

FACT: There is plentiful evidence that BF exists.

FACT: Skeptics have yet to disprove the that evidence.

TRUTH: BF exists.

Carry on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

FACT: There is plentiful evidence that BF exists.

FACT: Skeptics have yet to disprove the that evidence.

TRUTH: BF exists.

Carry on...

So where's the monkey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

FACT: There is plenty of evidence to suggest that BF exists. But has yet to be proven.

FACT: Skeptics are not required to respond to childish challenges of proving a negative. No one can prove something does not exist, nor can we rise to the false-positive challenge. It's impossible to prove that someone who filed a report hallucinated. It can't be done, but people hallucinate and make mistaken identifications all the time. But no one can prove that on a case by case basis.

TRUTH:People (like you Mulder) hold a belief that BF exists. It is in no way a fact yet.

Ironically, the one thing that is easily proven is BFs existence. So go out there and get the Monkey so you can prove skeptics wrong. In the meantime your "truth" of BF's existence is nothing of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

FACT: Skeptics are not required to respond to childish challenges of proving a negative. No one can prove something does not exist, nor can we rise to the false-positive challenge. It's impossible to prove that someone who filed a report hallucinated. It can't be done, but people hallucinate and make mistaken identifications all the time. But no one can prove that on a case by case basis.

FACT: Skeptics always say that so they do not have to engage the evidence. If you want to hold that the body of the evidence is 100% the result of hoaxes, misidentifications, etc, that is YOUR claim to prove. You cannot turn the "negative claims" meme around on proponents and demand we prove the evidence is NOT false.

It is your positive claim that all the evidence is invalid. Prove your claim. Not that it might be invalid, but that it is invalid.

Skeptics have to be right 100% of the time for there to be no BF.

Proponents only have to be right one single time.

TRUTH:People (like you Mulder) hold a belief that BF exists. It is in no way a fact yet.

1) It is not a belief. It is knowledge. I saw it, at close range in good light for sufficient time to get a good look at it.

2) That fact is in no way dependent on your "acceptance". It exists no matter how badly you desire to deny it.

So where's the monkey?

Running around out in the wild parts of the continent where it belongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

My problem with disproving the eye witness evidence is that it's impossible to do so. We're talking about human beings and their perceptions and beliefs. I can't go to someone who filed a BFRO report and "prove" that they hallucinated. The evidence simply cannot be engaged in the manner you suggest. To state otherwise is ridiculous. But why bother arguing about anecdotal evidence anyway? It's not scientific and cannot prove a **** thing.

Now the physical evidence, sure that can be refuted. And it has on many, many occasions. How many times have hair samples come back as dog, or bear, or rug ( though beginning to give that one more credence now after the sleeping Chewtilda footage was realeased), etc? How many times have tracks been debunked? But there do remain some precious few pieces of evidence that have yet to be conclusively proven one way or the other. That goes both ways Mulder. PGF has not been proven to be a BF, but has not been proven to be a hoax either. So there's a little bit for each of us in that one.

I'd say that in the overall arena of physical evidence analysis, that the skeptics are winning this one so far. Many contributions are revealed to be definitively something other than what they were purported to be, and many other have been outed as hoaxes. So, how many pieces of evidence have been conclusively proven to have been the result of a Bigfoot? Oh yeah, none.

Carry on..

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...