Jump to content
Guest

Initial Reaction To The Pgf

Recommended Posts

DWA

so, not strong evidence

that's all

Footprints?  Oh.  OK.

 

Yep, you are another of those "if it's not proof it's not evidence" people.  Must be tough when the universe isn't on one's schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What does that matter??

We are looking at the veracity of the purported evidence. By your logic evidence is worthless because it is not proof. why bother with anything in that case? Sherlock Holmes had something to say on that...

Did I ever say it wasn't worth looking at?

The foot print evidence has the problem of contamination by hoaxing and the lack of an actual animal. Nobody can say what a bigffot foot should look like.

I never said it was worthless but there is a problem. I would be more interested in hair or scat or more quality photo/video evidence.

Footprints? Oh. OK.

Yep, you are another of those "if it's not proof it's not evidence" people. Must be tough when the universe isn't on one's schedule.

are you serious bro?

It's just very weak evidence. Who ever said it wasn't evidence? all evidence isn't equal and shouldn't be weighted the same.

I think we've beat this to death. Maybe this thread needs to go at this point. It's miles away from the original intent.

Edited by mbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

^^^^^

Ding ding we have winner!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Did I ever say it wasn't worth looking at?

The foot print evidence has the problem of contamination by hoaxing and the lack of an actual animal. Nobody can say what a bigffot foot should look like.

I never said it was worthless but there is a problem. I would be more interested in hair or scat or more quality photo/video evidence.

are you serious bro?

It's just very weak evidence. Who ever said it wasn't evidence? all evidence isn't equal and shouldn't be weighted the same.

I think we've beat this to death. Maybe this thread needs to go at this point. It's miles away from the original intent.

No it's not.  But I know you're...oh wait.  "It isn't proof."  Right?  (Right.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

^^^^^

Ding ding we have winner!!!

Ha

I just edited the last line of my post, screwing up your reply.

Basically I was wondering if an actual conversation could occur or if DWA was just trying to troll anyone with an opposing opinion.

but what do I know...

No it's not.  But I know you're...oh wait.  "It isn't proof."  Right?  (Right.)

idk

who cares?

You like prints, I don't. Should we converse about something else or I would be willing to listen to any other reasons prints are compelling to you.

i would guess the volume of prints being found would be one reason to take them seriously. What else should we consider when looking at this subject.

Edited by mbh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cervelo

Oh well you had it right....LOL it will be our little "secret" !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan Norton

Did I ever say it wasn't worth looking at?

The foot print evidence has the problem of contamination by hoaxing and the lack of an actual animal. Nobody can say what a bigffot foot should look like.

I never said it was worthless but there is a problem. I would be more interested in hair or scat or more quality photo/video evidence.

are you serious bro?

It's just very weak evidence. Who ever said it wasn't evidence? all evidence isn't equal and shouldn't be weighted the same.

I think we've beat this to death. Maybe this thread needs to go at this point. It's miles away from the original intent.

All the evidence has the problem of the lack of an animal: otherwise it would be proof wouldn't it?

Does that mean we shouldn't apply scientific rigour to the evidence? No. I agree with you that other forms of evidence are useful, but I just happen to agree with the majority that prints are about as good as it gets at the moment: if you can show me how it was and still is possible to fake tracks well enough (and remember each and every single one must be a fake) to fool numerous experts then I'll reconsider.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

All the evidence has the problem of the lack of an animal: otherwise it would be proof wouldn't it?

Does that mean we shouldn't apply scientific rigour to the evidence? No. I agree with you that other forms of evidence are useful, but I just happen to agree with the majority that prints are about as good as it gets at the moment: if you can show me how it was and still is possible to fake tracks well enough (and remember each and every single one must be a fake) to fool numerous experts then I'll reconsider.

We know for a fact that experts have been tricked in the past.

I have no idea if I could fake tracks that would fool everyone. It seems clear that casting artifacts have contributed to the sketchy nature of this subject.

What about the tracks convinces you if I may ask?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

*** Mod Statement ***

 

This thread is being locked for a cooling down period.  I have placed warnings and babysat this thread long enough.  It is totally off-topic and Staff directive is being blatantly ignored. 

 

Ginger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

You like prints, I don't. Should we converse about something else or I would be willing to listen to any other reasons prints are compelling to you.

i would guess the volume of prints being found would be one reason to take them seriously. What else should we consider when looking at this subject.

Meldrum and Bindernagel and Krantz discuss this at length. 

 

Believe it or not, there is a "type" sasquatch track.  All that means is that no tracks conforming to that type have been incontrovertibly proven fake.  (Generally speaking, fakes found have shown none of the dynamic interaction with substrate that characterizes an animal track.  They are just "stamps."  A track isn't.)

 

There are many of these, more than enough of them that it stretches credulity to assert that a team of hoaxers with world-class academic training fanned out across the continent and laid them all (which yes, is the most likely alternative scenario, given the crudity of all the proven fakes.)  That's the kind of thing that needs to be taken into account when assessing evidence; Just Plain Joes aren't just going out there and fooling Meldrums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See-Te-Cah NC

Mod Statement :

 

This topic is now open for discussion again. Please remember our civility rules as you discuss this topic with other members. Discuss the topic, not the other members.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clubbedfoot

Ohh La La!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...