Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

Guest DWA

 

Why? What is an opinion worth if it doesn't consider and reflect the facts?

It's someone's opinion it doesn't have to be right or backed up by fact...

To categorically state someones opinion is not worth consideration or have value without facts to back it up would render this whole fourm invalid by his standards.

Not to mention the astounding arrogance and condescension of such a statement!

It's quite astounding that proponents quote such drivel, hypocritical and sadly hilarious at the sametime.

 

Actually, I think only a "bigfoot skeptic" could think something like that.

 

It is not arrogant nor condescending to tell someone that his opinion is pretty much useless if it isn't backed up by facts.  It's kind of the basis of intelligent conversation.

 

Just because someone gets to put an opinion here doesn't mean it's worth putting up here.  Or responding to.  And I better stop there.  :spiteful:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Nothing intelligent about that postion at all its in fact very reveling of ones ignorance of the subject.

It really has nothing to do with bigfoot but more with a comprehension issue, for most that is obvious ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

No, actually, it's the only intelligent way to do discourse.

 

The "bigfoot skeptic" position conveniently ignores the evidence, or makes blanket statements about it that not a single fact backs up.

 

That is intelligent?  Oh, OK.  I'm beginning to see why they hold it.  Because they actually think that.  :girlwacko:

 

"Ignorance is bliss" is the quicker way to put it.  :fan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Your starting to see the light :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

The vast majority of posts here are opinion not backed up by facts. There are members here who post large mini-treatise on the "known" behaviour and distribution of Bigfoots. These are nothing more than opinions at this point based on unproven facts. Bigfoot is not a proven fact, so how is it that really any comments around said animal do not fall into opinion or conjecture really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The vast majority of posts here are opinion not backed up by facts. There are members here who post large mini-treatise on the "known" behaviour and distribution of Bigfoots. These are nothing more than opinions at this point based on unproven facts. Bigfoot is not a proven fact, so how is it that really any comments around said animal do not fall into opinion or conjecture really?

 

1) What's a leprechaun known to keep?

 

A) Fish

B ) Jelly Donuts

C) Gold

 

2) What does a unicorn have on the top of it's head?

 

A) Horn

B )Third eye

C) Tail

 

3) A Troll lives where?

 

A) In a cave

B ) Under a bridge

C) In a house

 

Sasquatch is tall, hairy, walks on two legs, stinks, throws objects, and growls, shrieks and whistles.

 

We know this all the way back to Indian Lore.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

The tracks are facts; the sighting reports and reports of other evidence are facts; the books written by directly-qualified people about the evidence:  facts.

 

The skeptical argument against bigfoot is....um....it....um....never mind.

 

Facts need to be explained.  Those facts are not.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

The vast majority of posts here are opinion not backed up by facts. There are members here who post large mini-treatise on the "known" behaviour and distribution of Bigfoots. These are nothing more than opinions at this point based on unproven facts. Bigfoot is not a proven fact, so how is it that really any comments around said animal do not fall into opinion or conjecture really?

 

1) What's a leprechaun known to keep?

 

A) Fish

B ) Jelly Donuts

C) Gold

 

2) What does a unicorn have on the top of it's head?

 

A) Horn

B )Third eye

C) Tail

 

3) A Troll lives where?

 

A) In a cave

B ) Under a bridge

C) In a house

 

Sasquatch is tall, hairy, walks on two legs, stinks, throws objects, and growls, shrieks and whistles.

 

We know this all the way back to Indian Lore.

Thank-you for proving my point.

Perhaps you need a crash course in what is a fact, and what is not. At BF claimed track is not, in fact, a BF track. Why? Because BF is not a fact. The claim that this is a BF track remains and unproven opinion in the absence of an actual Bigfoot. This nuance is not that subtle, so I can only assume that you understand what I mean. Arguments that start with the premise that BF is real, are faulty.

Eye witness reports are facts of nothing more than someone reporting seeing something. And even that precludes those that are just flat out lying. To take the report as fact is an error. It is simply someone's opinion that this track or that track was made by a BF. It is only factual in the sense that it is a track of something. More often than not a bear or some other common animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Just for the record, Norse, everything after " proving my point" was aimed at DWA, not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

No, actually, let's give you the crash course, in reading.

 

"The tracks are facts; the sighting reports and reports of other evidence are facts; the books written by directly-qualified people about the evidence:  facts."

 

Translation into English:

 

"The tracks are facts; the sighting reports and reports of other evidence are facts; the books written by directly-qualified people about the evidence:  facts."

 

Did that help?  Thought so.

 

I didn't say what generated them.  I said, in fact, in so many  English words, that those facts have not been explained and need to be.  People are working on that.  You want to stop them why, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

No, actually, it's the only intelligent way to do discourse.

 

The "bigfoot skeptic" position conveniently ignores the evidence, or makes blanket statements about it that not a single fact backs up.

 

That is intelligent?  Oh, OK.  I'm beginning to see why they hold it.  Because they actually think that.  :girlwacko:

 

"Ignorance is bliss" is the quicker way to put it.  :fan:

That is categorically false. Bigfoot skeptics do not ignore the evidence. We probably look at just as much of as you do. But what we do is compare it to the numerous examples of faked evidence. A BF track? Great, any examples of faked ones? Yes, many. A BF video, any examples of faked ones? Yes, many. Oh look BF DNA..oh,sorry it's bear,or dog, or carpet. So in the absence, after many years, of an actual proven piece of video, DNA, trackway, etc, it seems somewhat prudent to start to think that we have plenty of faked evidence for Bigfoot, but not one single piece of proven evidence that perhaps Bigfoot might just not be real after all. And as more and more fakes roll in, Chewtilda, Ketchum, etc, and still not a single proven piece of evidence FOR Bigfoot, that this whole thing might just be a myth. I mean , as long as we're talking about evidence, there is far more evidence that BF is a hoax, than there is otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

You ignore the evidence, or you do not adequately explain it.

 

"...what we do is compare it to the numerous examples of faked evidence."  Whaaaaat?  Oh, that's scientific.

 

The remainder of your post puts the lie to your first three sentences.  Oh, no you don't.  Because you would be able to say things that prove those three sentences are true if you did.

 

How many times have I said to you that the fakes have no relation whatever to the 'live' evidence?  How many times that you are engaging in the

 

No proof on my schedule = no evidence fallacy  ?

 

How many times that...

 

Oh no you don't.  Don't run that one by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

The tracks are facts; the sighting reports and reports of other evidence are facts; the books written by directly-qualified people about the evidence: facts.

The skeptical argument against bigfoot is....um....it....um....never mind.

Facts need to be explained. Those facts are not.

It's a fact that Bigfoot has not been proven to exist how's that explanation ;)

The rest of the evidence exist...that's a fact...it's just someone's opnion as to the interpetation of that factual existing evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DWA

Has it been explained?  No.  Does it need to be?  Yes.  Have the skeptics gone Step One down that road? No.  All I need.

 

First explanation that makes sense wins, and so far the proponents are way ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Nope...don't have to...it's " your" claim you prove it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...