Guest Cervelo Posted May 16, 2013 Share Posted May 16, 2013 Anyone who will simply dismiss the PGF out of hand, without considering all of the great work done on it by scientists and costume expert Munns can not be argued with or convinced of anything. I have an immense amount of respect for Bill and his efforts. I have gone from being on the fence about PGF to being convinced its fake as a result of information gleaned from this fourm. I don't view efforts at this point any different than pulling one of these apart thread by thread in an attempt to discover anything but what it obviously is... That's not meant as a slam on Bill, some just see something different or quite obvious that really doesn't require a suit or extensive justification for ones opinion to be formed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 " OK. When I first started reading about this, I was like a lot of proponents, particulary fringe ones. I tried to figure out "why so few people ever see them." Absolutely convinced we weren't talking about something paranormal here, I came up with stuff like, well, an extremely nomadic animal with extremely low pop densities. You know, the one you see in MD this year you might see in the Yukon three years from now." But you were convinced, from the start, that BF was real? Isn't science supposed to work the other way around? Yep. Only one convinced here is you, way it sounds to us. The way you treat is the way you get treated, dmaker. Why not read your stuff the same way you read ours? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say or highlight here. I'm simply pointing out that it seems we came at this from completely different starting points. I was curious about BF. Wanted to see if there was anything to it. Eventually came to the conclusion that nope, not much really to this whole thing once you start really looking at it. But you, you seem to have came at it with a belief that the animal exists before you even starting digging further? Which I find curious for someone who likes to talk about how scientific he is. I thought, in Science, the conclusion comes after examination of the evidence, not before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 Nope. We both started from the same place. I just knew how to evaluate what was put in front of me. Only difference. I evaluate all evidence with an utterly open mind. Yours is made up. But that derives from the only difference. Read the RedQuote below. You're doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 But I'm settled on P/G. It's the single most compelling piece of evidence. And won't mean a thing until we have proof. Exactly. So why do you insist I/they disprove that which you/they cannot prove? See where this leads? In your own words the single most compelling piece of evidence doesn't mean a thing because, as it stands right now, you have no proof. I'm not confusing evidence with proof. A body. A bigfoot if you will. Alive or dead. Nothing less. I know, I know, for you, when you see one it's proven. But you haven't seen one. Btw Krantz said no human could walk like Patty, then proceeded to walk remarkably like Patty for several generous arm-swinging strides on film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 No piece of evidence is going to do much of anything if it isn't followed up. And there are thousands to follow up here. I don't insist on anyone taking any single piece of evidence as proof. I just insist they find the one curiosity bone they seem to have hidden last Easter with the eggs, and use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) I have a great interest in the PGF. I consider what Roger, Bob et al did that day quite remarkable. I just view the whole bigfoot thing in a different way than you do. Show me monkey. That's the only proof I would need. Edited May 17, 2013 by Squatchy McSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 BELIEVE!!!! lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 17, 2013 Share Posted May 17, 2013 ^^ That was pretty entertaining! Though now I fear I am going to be humming "I still believe in Bigfoot" all day and my co-workers will think I've gone round the bend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 When the exact same flow patterns ("dermal ridges") are created with experiment casts, I think that's about as solid as proof can get that they are simply casting artifacts. Try making a footprint in the forest and see if you can get any real dermal ridges from it with a plaster cast. It's just not possible... Not true, as at least one of the pictures I posted proves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Mulder, no that is wrong. There cannot be proof of Bigfoot until someone actually produces one. Circular reasoning fallacy. All or nothing fallacy A critter cannot be proven by anecdotal accounts and faked evidence. 1) You haven't proven the ANY of the evidence anecdotal or otherwise, has been faked. 2) When you have multiple eyewitnesses who all report seeing similar things, that is known legally as corroborating testimony. It is perfectly valid evidence in any court of the land. Which makes it more than good enough for any reasonable person. And Larry, well I do not have proof that "any and all" BF evidence is faked, there sure is a lot of proof of faked BF evidence out there. Let's take a quick score, shall we? Amount of proven fakes and hoaxes = I'll guess here, but I would say dozens easily, probably a lot more. We had one last night in fact. BF shot in PA!! OMG!! oh, wait..admitted hoax this morning. So sad Some = all fallacy Amount of proven Bigfoot evidence to date = ZERO. none. Weasel word, begging the question, and only "proof" = "evidence" fallacy..three strikes and YOU'RE OUT! Next up at bat? "And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting." Is it your opinion that Dr. Meldrum has never previously cast a footprint of a primate to study? Or did he set up microscopes in the field and look at them? Or did he excavate the entire area surrounding them? Or did he never cast a footprint before alleged BF prints? I would think an anthropologist with expertise in primate locomotion would indeed have extensive knowledge of plaster and casts.... Shhhhh...you're being reasonable...they don't like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SoFla Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) " Anyone who will simply dismiss the PGF out of hand, without considering all of the great work done on it by scientists and costume expert Munns can not be argued with or convinced of anything." Huh? Maybe had you said "...can not be argued with or convinced of anything to do with the PGF" you would have been correct. Otherwise, that is a sweeping accusation. So I'm not interested in the PGF therefore I can never hold an opinion on anything in life? Now that was a weak stance from which to argue.... as if you didn't know what I was referring to. Then again, I have seen this same kind of behavior when it comes to politics. I don't know if you are from the USA or not, but we have a whole thing going on with the Tea Party faction of the republican party (because that's what they are; republicans-they NEVER vote for a dem) where they refuse to believe that the president isn't a Muslim and wasn't even born in the USA-no amount of evidence will sway them otherwise in that thinking. I see people like you as that same "type" of person who will not change their mind after they have a certain set of beliefs. No offense intended... Edited May 18, 2013 by SoFla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Right. One can have an opinion. But that opinion can also be valid, or not. If you have no opinion on the P/G film, but have seen a bigfoot and know they're real...well, by the rules of argument I don't have to consider your sighting proof, but I have to acknowledge that you are expressing a basis for your opinion and must perforce respect it. When you just don't care about the most important single piece of evidence for a phenomenon, and out of hand, with no support for your claim, and yes it is a claim, dismiss the phenomenon as just total bunk, well, you may have an opinion. But under the rules of argument, the opinion garners no respect. There is no basis for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 1) You haven't proven the ANY of the evidence anecdotal or otherwise, has been faked.2) When you have multiple eyewitnesses who all report seeing similar things, that is known legally as corroborating testimony. It is perfectly valid evidence in any court of the land. Which makes it more than good enough for any reasonable person. Mulder, wrong again. I don't need to prove disprove the BF claim. Proponents need to prove their claim. That is how scientific claims work. You don't get to change the rules for Bigfoot. Stop trying. While multiple eye witness accounts may be valid evidence in any court of the land, it is NOT acceptable as scientific evidence to prove a new species. So...what's your point there? BF is not on trial, comparing this to law has no relevance what so ever. Again, don't change the game or the rules for BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Proponents are proving their claim. They have no need to either meet your rules or stick to your schedule. But as WSA puts it: For those whose every typewritten word is directed towards the dearth of evidence, to advocate [against its collection] is much more than passing strange.Nice. True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Right. One can have an opinion. But that opinion can also be valid, or not. If you have no opinion on the P/G film, but have seen a bigfoot and know they're real...well, by the rules of argument I don't have to consider your sighting proof, but I have to acknowledge that you are expressing a basis for your opinion and must perforce respect it. When you just don't care about the most important single piece of evidence for a phenomenon, and out of hand, with no support for your claim, and yes it is a claim, dismiss the phenomenon as just total bunk, well, you may have an opinion. But under the rules of argument, the opinion garners no respect. There is no basis for it. What rules of argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts