Guest wudewasa Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 ^^ I will not drink watered down beer while I wait for my Guiness. Though to address you a little more seriously WSA. I think it is this fascination with weak evidence that Footers enjoy. They cannot collect hard evidence, so let's exalt the weak crap that we do have seems to be the alternative. Footers will never accept that Bigfoot is not real, so instead they wallow around in the muck pit of weak evidence beaming about how much of it there is. Well it's still just a big pile of crap. The bigger the pile gets does not change its substance one bit. But there is evidence (posters, empty glasses that they claim Guinness was poured into) that Guinness is indeed on tap, so this proves that the pub is Irish as heck. It's a known fact and my expert opinion. Then again, the bar for proof that bigfoot exists has been lowered so much, we need James Cameron to save all that is sacred in the realm of squatchery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 (edited) dmaker, on 02 May 2013 - 3:28 PM, said: There is plenty of evidence with claims attached that it came from a Bigfoot, but those remain just claims. Opinion presented as fact. Quote Some of them have in fact been proven to have come from humans, i.e. hoaxed tracks. Which does not prove that ALL tracks are hoaxed, even if the tracks you claim are hoaxed actually were. Is it enough for you to make a claim that track X is hoaxed and therefore it is? More presumption of opinion as fact. Quote Samples have been proven to come from everything but a Bigfoot it seems. Pinker, Rosen, Kerly and Moore (all either professional forensic hair examiners or forensic/physical anthropologists) have definitively stated that they have examined hairs belonging to a primate NOT in the current (as of the time of their statements) catalogue. Dermatoglypics belonging to a non-human primate have been documented (Chillcut, a professional fingerprint examiner). A scientific analysis of a grouping of track sizes indicated a statistical match to a NORMAL (that is representing an actual population of living individuals) distribution curve (Fahrenbach) Quote So technically speaking there is NO evidence of Bigfoot right now. “Evidence†= “proof†fallacy. Quote There is evidence that is claimed to be from a Bigfoot, but to date none of that can be substantiated because right now there is no proof of Bigfoot to validate the claim. See how that works? Yes, I am very familiar with how the pseudo-science of circular reasoning works, having see it being practiced many times in a number of debates on various topics. Furthermore I am well aware of how “rigging the process†works, where one side of the debate acts not only to write the rules, but also apply the rules and determine the result. People see things all the time that are not what they think they are. Bigfoot is no different. People actually see things all the time that Skeptics claim aren't what they think they are. Unless of course you can demonstrate either God-like powers of omniscience, or the technology to personally travel to the exact point in time and place of every sighting and document that the witness is in fact mistaken about what they saw. Edited May 3, 2013 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 dmaker, on 02 May 2013 - 3:28 PM, said: There is plenty of evidence with claims attached that it came from a Bigfoot, but those remain just claims. Opinion presented as fact. How is that not a fact? Any evidence for Bigfoot is conditional upon Bigfoot being proven. Bigfoot is not proven, therefore all evidence claiming that Bigfoot exists will remain just claims until such time as Bigfoot is proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 3, 2013 Share Posted May 3, 2013 What has been substantiated through examination of hair, tracks, and DNA, is the existance of an unclassified primate in North America. I wonder if it might be a Bigfoot, hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 I have asked this question a few times thru the years and think it applies to this topic. At what point will your belief wane, buoying your skeptical side(if you are presently a believer)? 2015? 2020? If in 10 years, with all of our modern technology, still no body of an 8 ft. 500 lb breeding population of a dumpster diving, chain smoking, train riding man-ape has been produced...what then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 Depends on what you call proof, since it would be your mind that has to accept it. Should we even consider that bigfoot is a human of some type ? That would explain much of the evidence and it would be easier to see the cogency. Does bigfoot have to be some type of monster and nonhuman to be proven to you? No Bigfoot has to be present to be proven to me. As in show me one, or a body of one. Not some dog hair, or carpet, or hoaxed video or tracks, but an actual specimen. That is what is meant by proven. How will you know it is bigfoot when you see it? Looking at one on film or a photo won't work I expect. Are you going to go see it live and touch it like Biscardi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 (edited) Footers will never accept that Bigfoot is not real, so instead they wallow around in the muck pit of weak evidence beaming about how much of it there is. Well it's still just a big pile of crap. The bigger the pile gets does not change its substance one bit. Each person has their own threshold for acceptance. Maybe it's seeing a good video, maybe it's seeing one in person, or maybe hearing that science has DNA proof from some trusted source suffices. People think for themselves and judge the evidence for themselves. Simply talking down to them and repeating the phrase" it's not proven" won't change when they accept or reject the evidence. Edited May 4, 2013 by southernyahoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 What has been substantiated through examination of hair, tracks, and DNA, is the existance of an unclassified primate in North America. I wonder if it might be a Bigfoot, hmmm. Really? Care to substantiate that please? The tracks do not substantiate anything of the sort. And DNA studies, that I can recall, come back as contaminated or everything but Bigfoot. But please educate me and point me towards the reports that unambiguously state that there is an unclassified primate running around North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 What has been substantiated through examination of hair, tracks, and DNA, is the existance of an unclassified primate in North America. I wonder if it might be a Bigfoot, hmmm. Hair- Inconclusive Tracks- Inconclusive to known hoaxes DNA- Bear How do the above items substantiate the existence of bigfoot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FZObBXp88 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 4, 2013 Share Posted May 4, 2013 They don't and I didn't suggest they did. What those inconclusive findings do is leave a question. What is out there leaving trace evidence that can not be conclusively identified? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 6, 2013 Share Posted May 6, 2013 ^^ People and shadows and perfectly common animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotta Know Posted May 7, 2013 Author Share Posted May 7, 2013 ^^ People and shadows and perfectly common animals. Being new here I have to say that I absolutely do not understand why you spend so much time trying to talk people out of their own sightings, experiences and/or beliefs. Even if it's all crap (and I don't believe it is--just way too many reports and folklore dating back hundreds if not thousands of years), why do you care so much and spend so much of your life's energy trying to apparently save people from themselves? I mean, why don't you just try to boil the ocean while you're at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) You are right, it's a futile effort. People are going to believe in their shiny woo even in the face of zero conclusive evidence and lack of any application of reality based common sense. I find the topic engaging. But not for the same reasons that 80% of this board does. I find it fascinating that so many people gather together with the sole purpose of pretending an animal exists that does not. Or allowing themselves to be fooled by charlatans and weak evidence. I find the desire of Footers to believe to be a fascinating phenomenon to watch from the sidelines. The lengths they will go to to stretch something to the point that it's credible is astonishing to watch. But entertaining. The problem is that I don't always stay on the sidelines. I sometimes feel compelled to jump in to counter statements that I find particularly in need of a counter. Edited May 7, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Got past the "Forward" on Bindernagel yet dmaker? OPENED it yet even.....? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Read it actually. It was interesting. I think it's outdated. I think, despite Dr. Bindernagels protests otherwise, if BF really existed there would be more evidence and fewer excuses. I don't really think it's a matter of science not taking it seriously and launching a serious search. I think science has taken as much of a look as it needs to. It does not take a team of phds to realize that BF research is a frivolous waste of resources in my opinion. Bindernagels book is great if you are a phd looking to present excuses to world as to why science does not take Bigfoot seriously. His book would have been more relevant, in my opinion, were it written in 1979 not 2010. The time for serious consideration for BF has come and gone. There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No animal exists with that range, that population and leaves no tangible trace. Be it fossil or contemporary remains. BF is a fanciful idea. The last thing the world needs is another book by deluded, self interested, phds claiming why there is still no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts