Jump to content
Admin

Kitakaze's Patty Suit Bombshell (2)

Recommended Posts

Guest

After the recess, I realize the deep wrong I have perpetrated against all you skeptics and fully acknowledge that you should ignore all my prev posts since I did not preface them with my credentials. Thanks for understanding, I feel better now. So then, Kit-54 where are you?

Edited by WV FOOTER
Edit Objectionable Text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

Giganto I believe you are a Bigfoot High School Trigonometrist. You don't have to provide credentials for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Giganto I believe you are a Bigfoot High School Trigonometrist. You don't have to provide credentials for that.

 

Are you sure Drew, should we not see his high school transcript or report card?

 

j/K Giganoto, and before you ask, no, I did not search the BFF for your report card or HS transcript. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WV FOOTER

                                                                                       MOD STATEMENT

 

FYI The term Scoftic, or any derivative of such is Taboo on the open Forum. Please refrain from its use on the open forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

This section of BFF is like Jerry Springer, drama drama  drama......Every proponent in here is so hung up on every word/idea KIT says/has.  That appears to be all this section is about, KITS ideas.  Its rather amusing. 

 

Maybe he is not posting to much lately because he has so much real estate to maintain given how much space he occupies in all the hardcore proponents skulls around here........

TWIST,

 

See how easy it is to get into a on goin' conversation.   ;)

 

kitakaze,

 

How big was your cell phone screen, if you don't mind me asking ?

 

Pat...

post-279-0-70327300-1450239379_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

dmaker

My bold.  THAT is precisely the point, and why confirming credentials can be worthwhile. Don't you get that? Or would you rather just accept that someone is the expert they claim they are, and that the information coming from them is valid and accurate?

 

It's not that hard a concept, BH.  When you were an amateur JFK investigator, did you just take someones expertise at face value? And, consequently, anything they said afterward?  I doubt it.

 

I have no doubt that Gigantofootecus is a Photogammetrist. And until someone like yourself can show even a hint of knowledge and/or expertise in Photogammetry - I wouldn't waste my time you if I were he. So far I have not seen where you or anyone else has raised any issues with the formulas or mathematics Gigantofootecus has posted. First one should find someone skilled in Photogammetry and ask that they check his work and go from there for only that person would be capable of making such a determination. Gigantofootecus posting his identity and credentials isn't going to tell someone like you if his work is correct - only someone skilled in Photogammetry can do that. It's no different than a member posting that he or she is skilled as a mathematician and I look at their figures and find they are correct ... what right do I have to question if they are truly a mathematician? If their work is right and can be verified by someone skilled in the same field, then what right would we have to call their credentials into question. When I read back over this nonsense ... I visualize several dogs cocking their ears from side to side as they listen on while not having a clue as to what is being said. And if Gigantofootecus was to post his certificate, then all one has to do is say that its been falsified. All the while doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the accuracy of his work which is all that really matters in the first place.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

 

This section of BFF is like Jerry Springer, drama drama  drama......Every proponent in here is so hung up on every word/idea KIT says/has.  That appears to be all this section is about, KITS ideas.  Its rather amusing. 

 

Maybe he is not posting to much lately because he has so much real estate to maintain given how much space he occupies in all the hardcore proponents skulls around here........

TWIST,

 

See how easy it is to get into a on goin' conversation.   ;)

 

kitakaze,

 

How big was your cell phone screen, if you don't mind me asking ?

 

Pat...

 

You sir are most right in this point.  

 

I am a member of a number or forums and communities, each having their different rules and regulations.  I will work harder in the future to make sure I am both a rules abiding member and beneficial member of this forum going forward.  I truly do not mean to be a counter-productive member of this forum but still feel firm in standing true to my beliefs and defending my beliefs/views here.

 

I look forward to open and honest dialogue with both skeptics and proponents regarding BF.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

 First one should find someone skilled in Photogammetry and ask that they check his work and go from there for only that person would be capable of making such a determination. Gigantofootecus posting his identity and credentials isn't going to tell someone like you if his work is correct - only someone skilled in Photogammetry can do that. It's no different than a member posting that he or she is skilled as a mathematician and I look at their figures and find they are correct ... what right do I have to question if they are truly a mathematician? If their work is right and can be verified by someone skilled in the same field, then what right would we have to call their credentials into question.

 

BH, I am cutting and pasting a portion of your post from post # 1761, for reference. 

 

You state that we should not questions or ask to verify if someone is skilled in a certain trade ( in this case photogrammetry ) yet we have to use someone proven in that exact field to verify them.  Why can we not ask for their verification PRIOR to to proving them wrong via a VERIFIED means?  I do not want to go to a verified photogrammetrist only to show them an unverified person and look a fool.  If you make a claim on the BFF, back it up, as I said earlier.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

At this point you do not have to worry about looking like a fool as there are others who are doing a bang-up job in grabbing that spotlight in my view. But if you are truly concerned about the validity of Gigantofootecus's skills, then you really have no excuse in not having someone take a look at his work. He has shown his work and explained in detail how he came to his conclusions, so let's face it - you and the others really do not know if anything he has said or shown is incorrect.

 

The proving of his credentials is in his work and what he has demonstrated in his post. People like Krantz, Meldrum, Donskoy, and etc., have credentials that were well known and these same skeptics knowing what they were did not accept their findings in the least. Is this not correct? These same skeptics have defended other skeptics right not to have their personal information posted on this forum to now want someone they don't have the ability to argue with expose his personal information and do so without a single one of them showing any proof that calls into question the accuracy of the data Gigantofootecus has submitted. I am really quite shocked that these individuals have been allowed to get away with it. Several have admitted they could care less about this thread topic and several have openly admitted they have no training in Photogammetry to know if what Gigantofootecus has posted is accurate or not - so this brings us back to if that is all he needs to do to verify the accuracy of his findings is to show his credentials, then why didn't that work for Krantz, Meldrum, Donskoy, Bindernagle, and the list goes on. The fact is that it will not mean anything to those claiming that it would make a difference.


Especially when I have seen people on JFK forums claim to be Photogrammetrists, and get called out by an actual expert. People in odd topical forums claiming to be an expert, and using that expertise to try to gain authority, should show their credentials, or stop adding the 'I'm an XYZ certified expert' tag to their claims.

 

I am quite familiar  with those forums - can you name such an occasion where someone was claimed to be a Photogammetrist that was called out and exposed as not being one at all? It should be easy to do for if I haven't seen it - there cannot be that many times it has occurred, if at all. You claim to have seen 'people' in the plural forum called out by an actual expert, so give me an example if you can.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

BH,

 

I am not truly concerned with Giga's ability to prove his credentials, nor do I believe they are not what he says they are.  What I am getting at, the root of my stance is that if someone is going to claim to be a professional or expert in a certain field and use that point to make claims they should be willing to back up their expertise. Not by any means is that person required to, but to make such claims and not expect to be called out on them is a little ludicrous to me.  The internet is full of keyboard warriors that will claim anything, if you want to be taken serious then be willing to back up what you say. 

 

The fact that other scientist with credentials not being taken serious by other skeptics is not cause or reason to throw out the need for said credentials.  That logic makes no sense to me. The minute someone disagrees with them should they take down the diploma hanging on the wall?  

 

Again, Giga has been the example of my stance in this thread but not so much because I dis-believe him or am generally concerned with his claims specifically.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

While Krantz, Bindernagle and Meldrum have shown their credentials they do not have peer consensus. I don't have a phd in biology, but I can observe the world around me. That observation tells me that it is more likely that an extremely small number of scientists who believe bigfoot to be real are wrong than bigfoot actually existing given the lack of physical evidence.  If those scientists had a peer consensus, then I would possibly reconsider. But right now, they are barely even one percent of biology phds in the world. Why would I believe them over the rest of their peers and common sense? Particularly when they won't even attempt to publish in a peer reviewed journal. 

 

Same goes for Giganto. If he had some sort of peer consensus going on with other certified photogrammetrists that supported his conclusions, then I'd take more notice. As it stands right now, I am going to stick with my provisional conclusion that bigfoot does not exist. Despite the findings of one certified photogrammetrist who won't even share his credentials.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

What poll is this from? What source is this from?

Put another way, just tell us the % of the PhDs who say bigfoot cannot exist or be real.

This is the type of guess which becomes the convential wisdom. What reality is this biased on.

When election polling is done, it can be faily accurate if they poll 2,000 people. What amount of scientist

A have had the same question put to them in a poll so the q can be consistent and the answer can be anonymous? Where has this happened ?

I will agree the bulk of science might not say there IS a bigfoot but they qualify their answer. Even skeptics of the PGF who appear on TV will rarely outright reject it. They will say what "concerns" they have. In the show BigfootThe Definative Guide the nay Sayers at the round table on the PGF focused on Roger Patterson NOT what was on the film so much.

The position do science might be that which is unproven is just so far unproven. But where is this majority who say bigfoot does not exist and what was the method such a number is based on?

BD

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

^^The weight of garbage evidence, garbage politics, garbage presumptions and garbage "science" filling the hold of the bigfoot ship of state is so substantial as to capsize whatever fills the dingy of what could be considered  reasonable by even the most  undemanding advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

While Krantz, Bindernagle and Meldrum have shown their credentials they do not have peer consensus. I don't have a phd in biology, but I can observe the world around me. That observation tells me that it is more likely that an extremely small number of scientists who believe bigfoot to be real are wrong than bigfoot actually existing given the lack of physical evidence.  If those scientists had a peer consensus, then I would possibly reconsider. But right now, they are barely even one percent of biology phds in the world. Why would I believe them over the rest of their peers and common sense? Particularly when they won't even attempt to publish in a peer reviewed journal. 

 

Same goes for Giganto. If he had some sort of peer consensus going on with other certified photogrammetrists that supported his conclusions, then I'd take more notice. As it stands right now, I am going to stick with my provisional conclusion that bigfoot does not exist. Despite the findings of one certified photogrammetrist who won't even share his credentials.

 

How many scientist have you polled to know what they believe?

 

dmaker:  "How would you recognize genuine expertise in this case? Do you have any yourself? This is not meant as an insult, but a genuine question. If I don't have specific expertise in something, then I would tend to just accept what is presented to me by an "expert". But without my own expertise to even judge the authenticity of what I am being told, how do I know the information is even good? That is where peer consensus can come in handy."

 

So what expert has reviewed the formulas and math Gigantofootecus applied and found it to be incorrect?

^^The weight of garbage evidence, garbage politics, garbage presumptions and garbage "science" filling the hold of the bigfoot ship of state is so substantial as to capsize whatever fills the dingy of what could be considered  reasonable by even the most  undemanding advocate.

 

At least some of that garbage was tossed overboard - like the boot heel in the cast and its pitch black out just before the official sunrise time. And that garbage came from the skeptic ship - did it not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"So what expert has reviewed the formulas and math Gigantofootecus applied and found it to be incorrect?" BH

 

I never said one had. You ask strange questions sometimes. It's almost as if you don't read or don't understand what I post.

 

"How many scientist have you polled to know what they believe?" BH

 

I haven't polled any. Let me rephrase that then, so that maybe it pleases your literal senses a bit more. The rest of Meldrum, et al peers seem either unconvinced or uninterested in the findings of the scant few bigfoot scientists.  Meldrum et als peers may seem uninterested perhaps because the work of the bigfoot phds has escaped their notice. Or perhaps since none of the bigfoot phds have published in mainstream scientific journals, their peers are not responding since, well, what is there to respond to, exactly? Or maybe their peers are simply uninterested. 

 

From the lack of peer consensus or support we can infer that the bigfoot phds peers are either uninterested, unimpressed or possibly disagree. Either way, the lack of consensus is not helpful. Why would I, a simple layman, overturn my own observations and common sense when Meldurm, Krantz and Bindernagles peers can't even be bothered to take notice and offer support? That tells me a lot.

 

Perhaps I should have said " why would I believe them while the rest of their peers remain silent"?   Is that better?

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×