Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 And what are your qualifications? I don't need qualifications to know the limits of someone's expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Um, really? Well here are your limits: I'm taking the footprint expert on a footprint - or a footprint cast - over you. All there is to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 That's rich coming from a guy who has no problem declaring himself smarter than scientists who disagree with him but when people challenge his favorite experts resorts to "well there're experts and you're not." And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) 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... Edited May 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Once again: on anything like this, I take the opinions of the experts. No one has contradicted Meldrum's or Krantz's take on what they represent. The casting-artifiacts discussion is a light breeze in a teapot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 In Krantz's book Big Foot Prints, he stated that once he discovered dermal ridges that he actually could see pores from the skin under magnification. He thought this would settle the argument right then, but it didn't. Soooo, live, dead or a substantial piece is the only answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Well, for sure, footprints won't settle this. Pretty much all the evidence, in fact, has been poisoned by mainstream incredulity. Yep, gonna need a specimen, unless somebody somehow comes up with something else compelling beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 ^^ Well that could be easily solved Mulder, by one single shred of physical evidence that can inarguably attributed to a Bigfoot. Just one. Just once. IOW, ...got Monkey? "Look! Look! There is no milk in the top half of this glass!!!! MILK DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!" - Milk Skeptic on the subject of the existence of milk. I'm not reposting the "laundry list" again dmaker. You know the evidence exists. I know the evidence exists. You refuse to accept the evidence, but it exists whether you accept it or not. ^Alternately, it is the perfect explanation for why Skeptics routinely dismiss out of hand all the existing evidence FOR BF. They will buy ANY explanation at all, no matter how far-fetched, just to not acknowledge the evidence on proffer's validity. Specifically, what do you consider to be existing evidence? Answered many times over wude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) ^^ Well that could be easily solved Mulder, by one single shred of physical evidence that can inarguably attributed to a Bigfoot. Just one. Just once. IOW, ...got Monkey? "Look! Look! There is no milk in the top half of this glass!!!! MILK DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!" - Milk Skeptic on the subject of the existence of milk. I'm not reposting the "laundry list" again dmaker. You know the evidence exists. I know the evidence exists. You refuse to accept the evidence, but it exists whether you accept it or not. Sorry Mulder, but your milk analogy does not even make sense. Show me a glass half filled with conclusive, physical Bigfoot evidence, and I will concede that BF exists. It might be a pretty gross way to make your point, but have at it. Yes the evidence exists whether I accept it or not. I have never said the evidence does not exist, I just maintain that it is weak and is not enough to support the claim. That is not a "refusal to accept the evidence" as you put it. I accept it, I just call it what it is--fabricated. The result of human mistakes, lies and hoaxes. The central source of Bigfoot evidence is human beings, not an undiscovered ape. Edited May 15, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 That last sentence - actually the last three - is stated as a fact...but is utterly unsupported. It's an opinion, directly contradicted by the evidence, which supports the claim. It just doesn't prove it. Precision. Essential to scientific practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Yeah, or it could be the whole absence of evidence for the existence of BF, means BF does not exist. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - Carl Sagan (or is he a "b'leever" in your eyes now?) To which I know you will say but we have evidence, we have reports, we have tracks ( some of which you believe to be real), we have samples (never mind that to date not a single sample has provided anything conclusive). Individually maybe not. Taken together it proves that there is a real critter out there needing classification. A mountain can be "proven" by one boulder or a huge pile of pebbles. But none of that evidence proves anything. Most of it is unacceptable as scientific proof In your opinion. and the rest of it is hoaxed by humans. In your opinion. And never mind that you continue to fall back on the all-around standard logic fallacy of those wishing not to engage evidence for a claim: equate "evidence" with "proof" then claim that there is no evidence. If we went to a court with fully-funded attorneys and full access to the appropriate experts, which side would win? The side that has the forensically typed hairs, track casts with biometrics, etc? Or the side with NOTHING but hot air and logic fallacies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Yes the evidence exists whether I accept it or not. I have never said the evidence does not exist, I just maintain that it is weak and is not enough to support the claim. That is not a "refusal to accept the evidence" as you put it. I accept it, I just call it what it is--fabricated. Where is your proof that any and all evidence of BF is "fabricated"? The result of human mistakes, lies and hoaxes. You forgot "mental illness"? Or have you changed your mind about that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 Sorry Mulder, but your milk analogy does not even make sense. Makes perfect sense...it just destroys your argument so... Show me a glass half filled with conclusive, physical Bigfoot evidence, Again with the "only 'proof' " = 'evidence' " fallacy I just call it what it is--fabricated. Evidence? I won't even bother asking for proof, since we both know you can't reach that bar. The result of human mistakes, lies and hoaxes. Evidence? Moreover, for each and every piece[/] of proponent evidence. Penn & Teller does not invalidate ALL video/film/photos. Elbe does not invalidate ALL trackways. Proponents only need to be right ONE time. Skeptics need to be right 100 PERCENT of the time. The central source of Bigfoot evidence is human beings, not an undiscovered ape. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) That's rich coming from a guy who has no problem declaring himself smarter than scientists who disagree with him but when people challenge his favorite experts resorts to "well there're experts and you're not." And being a "footprint expert" does not make you an expert on the mechanics of plaster and casting. See, you don't know how to think about this. You keep showing that. Why do the scientists who disagree with me disagree with me? THERE IS NO REASON. Go ahead, give me one. You won't give me one I can't blow away in seconds. Try it. Why do the experts agree with me, and I with them? Read something and one might find that out. Classic dodge: falling back on uninformed consensus, and refusing to consult anything that disagrees. Yes the evidence exists whether I accept it or not. I have never said the evidence does not exist, I just maintain that it is weak and is not enough to support the claim. That is not a "refusal to accept the evidence" as you put it. I accept it, I just call it what it is--fabricated. Where is your proof that any and all evidence of BF is "fabricated"? You forgot. He's a "skeptic." They don't have to provide any evidence for the outlandish things they say. What they say goes because they say it and it went. Where I will leave to the imagination. The result of human mistakes, lies and hoaxes. You forgot "mental illness"? Or have you changed your mind about that one? It can be really hard keeping all three sentences in full view. Or two. Or whatever it is. **Edit** Edited May 18, 2013 by DWA To Remove Offensive Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 15, 2013 Share Posted May 15, 2013 "Individually maybe not. Taken together it proves that there is a real critter out there needing classification. A mountain can be "proven" by one boulder or a huge pile of pebbles." Mulder, no that is wrong. There cannot be proof of Bigfoot until someone actually produces one. That has not happened yet. A critter cannot be proven by anecdotal accounts and faked evidence. 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 Amount of proven Bigfoot evidence to date = ZERO. none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts