What Level Are You At As A Researcher/believer? Why Such Charged Emotions?

[Guest Grifter9931]

 

 

Take for example this:  "Are you comparing BF to a Black Hole?"  Yes I am. 

"Absolutely no one has said that looks like a real creature, ever."  [about P/G]

 

That could be the most incredible sentence I have ever read on the Internet.  "No one has confirmed sand" couldn't be a more amazing statement.

 

 

 

When ever you can source a peer reviewed scientific publication in good standing with the aforementioned community that classifies BF as verified creature currently in existence. I would gladly retract my statement. Until that happens, we agree to disagree. 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2013 by Grifter9931

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

Take for example this:  "Are you comparing BF to a Black Hole?"  Yes I am. 

"Absolutely no one has said that looks like a real creature, ever."  [about P/G]

 

That could be the most incredible sentence I have ever read on the Internet.  "No one has confirmed sand" couldn't be a more amazing statement.

 

 

 

When ever you can source a peer reviewed scientific publication in good standing with the aforementioned community that classifies BF as verified creature currently in existence. I would gladly retract my statement. Until that happens, we agree to disagree. 

 

Well, doesn't take anything away from the incredibility, doesn't it.

 

Peer review is useless when the peers show their ignorance of the topic to any well-read layman with every pronouncement they make.

 

And what you're saying I can say about anything:  unicorns; The Sphinx Walks At Night; So Do Mummies:  Crop Circles As Alien Directional Markers; etc.

 

This is just what I mean:  "you must prove it" thrown down as some sort of argument closer.  again....and again....and again....and again....one might admire the stamina.  But one would want to see more thought.

[Guest DWA]

The problem with the black hole Bigfoot argument is that with black holes repeatable tests can be run which give evidence of their existence.

The same cant be said yet of Bigfoot. DNA tests have been run and so far came back as negative. If any of these DNA samples being tested on result in an unknown primate than you will begin to see acceptance.

Common misconception.  Bigfoot skeptics keep conflating evidence and proof, which are decidedly different concepts.

 

Sasquatch keep leaving tracks; people keep seeing them.

 

Black holes don't leave tracks and no one's ever seen one.  Once again.  If you don't have an advanced physics degree, black holes are nothing.

 

If you are one of thousands of ordinary North Americans, you have seen an animal, and its tracks.

 

Black holes would be utter fantasy were there no physicists who were somehow able to put extremely complex technical calculations into layman's terms.  And were there no automatic tendency in the society to trust 'experts' whose fields most laymen can't understand.

 

One of our critical problems in digesting stuff like sasquatch is that deference to 'experts', who actually know a whole lot less than they tend to let on.  But the fact is that we have a whole lot more tangible evidence for sasquatch than we do for black holes.  We just don't trust the folks that tell us the former....and implicitly trust those that tell us the latter.

 

And that is a very very uncomfortable fact for a lot of people to confront.

Edited July 12, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

The problem with the black hole Bigfoot argument is that with black holes repeatable tests can be run which give evidence of their existence.

The same cant be said yet of Bigfoot. DNA tests have been run and so far came back as negative. If any of these DNA samples being tested on result in an unknown primate than you will begin to see acceptance.

Common misconception.  Bigfoot skeptics keep conflating evidence and proof, which are decidedly different concepts.

 

Sasquatch keep leaving tracks; people keep seeing them.

 

Black holes don't leave tracks and no one's ever seen one.  Once again.  If you don't have an advanced physics degree, black holes are nothing.

 

If you are one of thousands of ordinary North Americans, you have seen an animal, and its tracks.

 

Black holes would be utter fantasy were there no physicists who were somehow able to put extremely complex technical calculations into layman's terms.  And were there no automatic tendency in the society to trust 'experts' whose fields most laymen can't understand.

 

One of our critical problems in digesting stuff like sasquatch is that deference to 'experts', who actually know a whole lot less than they tend to let on.  But the fact is that we have a whole lot more tangible evidence for sasquatch than we do for black holes.  We just don't trust the folks that tell us the former....and implicitly trust those that tell us the latter.

 

And that is a very very uncomfortable fact for a lot of people to confront.

That post is so far off the mark, it's not even wrong.

[Guest DWA]

^^^And here is a textbook example of the kind of societal credulity we are talking about.

We're a society of internet-fed 'experts,' trusting what people say based on who they are, and not our ability to think about what they're saying. 

Edited July 12, 2013 by DWA
To Edit Content

[Guest]

***Mod Statement***

 

Just a reminder of forum rules:

 

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.
3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.
4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

 

 

Please remember while heated debate is permitted, personal attacks are not.  Please temper posts with respect for others in mind.

 

Thank you,

Ginger

[WV FOOTER]

Lets say I am a believer, but I want to see a Bigfoot so I can be in Bobo's Knower Club.

[kbhunter]

*** MOD STATEMENT ***

I know BigGinger has already stated to STAY ON TOPIC! I have seen this thread de-rail at every turn and I will close it down if we do not stick with the topic.

Thanks!

KB

[Guest Cervelo]

Well I gotta say not sure what the purpose of the thread is....labeling people and the usual devolving into another skeptic bashfest..if that's it...mission acomplished

[southernyahoo]

 

Grifter, no offense, but I put much more store in the words and opinion of Mr. Munns than you.

 

On a personal note, if the PGF is / was so easily accomplished, why hasn't a decent recreation been accomplished?

 

Sorry, ain't buying your story.

No offense taken. But I will take the word of the folks I work with over any of you people... YMMV

 

Also why didn't any scientist swarm the original PGF film site after the footage was released.

 

The reasoning behind why the film hasn't been dup'd is because in the real world, BF isn't taken seriously. Most people have real problems.

Santa clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth fairy carry more importance.... The BF ecosystem has a very small niche in the grand scheme of things.

 

So don't buy anything I am saying... I feel the same way about allot of the things that are posted as "fact" here concerning BF. 

I do try to ask as many questions and read as much as I can about the phenomena. 

 

Also if you read up about Patterson, I have yet to read anything that remotely would convince anyone that he was a genuine person. But regardless, in a few years I bet someone will start quoting Ketchum as well, about the validity of everything BF. Also if the folks at Henson Production Company said it can be done, I will roll with their opinion...

 

 

Answered your own question there.   

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Well I gotta say not sure what the purpose of the thread is....labeling people and the usual devolving into another skeptic bashfest..if that's it...mission acomplished

 

It accomplished something else .... it got you to post more bandwidth on a topic that you feel to be a waste of your time.

 

Posted 30 June 2013

Cerveco:  "I rarely go into any of the insanely redundant threads " " " " " " and poo poo on the party.

Why because I really don't care it's a waste of my time."

[Guest Cervelo]

No those would be the redundant PGF threads

Edited July 13, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Because I have seen a Sasquatch, then I must be at 'sea level'.    

[Guest SquatchinNY]

I am none of the above. I am quite into the subject, but I don't think I have encountered one. I would say I am a BF hobbyist.