Incorrigible1 Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 While discovery of a bigfoot creature would be enormous, verification of an alien civilization capable of responding to SETI would rock the world more than the discovery of the New World. As a libertarian, fiscally conservative, I do not begrudge spending on projects such as SETI, nor most of NASA. Still, the budget to thoroughly explore the existence of bigfoot pales in comparison to space exploration. And as that libertarian fiscally conservative voter, I don't want my government, funded through my taxes, to pursue bigfoot. That is the realm of the citizen, the amateur explorer. And a raspberry to those claiming proof. I simply don't believe you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 As a libertarian myself, i don't want my taxes being used on something that for 56 years has shown NOTHING. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I respect that, and disagree. Some aspects of human exploration are worthy. I fully appreciate you may disagree. Such is the marvelous nature of libertarianism. Libertarians plot to take over the world and then leave you alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) I also respect your view, I also disagree. I have to say that I agree with your last statement, and think that would be wonderful. Edited September 11, 2013 by sheri 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Out of plusses, Sheri. So solly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I wish I could plus you both just for the giggle factor. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Yeah, well, what is it you find giggle worthy? That we don't take stories as proof, or something else? Thank you for your participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) I believe he was being kind, and enjoyed our conversation. Edited September 11, 2013 by sheri 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I see what you are saying DWA - but don't you think that mainstream scientist would look a lot closer at this if they had better evidence to go on than sighting reports and blurry pictures and DNA findings published under more than questionable circumstances? No question. The way things go - not about the search for truth but the search for funding - this is about as close to a nonstarter as we can get at the moment. Which is why most of what I direct at the mainstream is: stop saying it's not real if you don't know - and you don't, based only on what you tell me - one way or the other. Scientists seem incapable of professing a suspended judgment if they think even one colleague has an opinion. Scientists as a body are simply too conservative to commit much of anything to something they aren't sure they will find. That said, I hope some of them are talking to Alton Higgins right about now. If there are truly habituation situations going on and they are gathering evidence then they are in a unique situation to provide evidence to mainstream science. Instead, they come on here and YELL at people who do not believe them. They do this because apparently everyone in a habituation situation would rather sing kum-ba-ya with the hairy guy instead of share a wonderful discovery. And there you go. Humans in all their wonderful variety. Still, as I said, whether I like it or not, can't say it surprises me too much. I think the fringes of this discussion, and like it or not, that's what habituators are as long as there is no insight into what is actually going on other than what they say, about something they could video to a fare-thee-well if they wanted to, need to lay down their weapons and start talking about this more on the level of, OK, I'm open, show me. More flies with sugar than with [used hay] sort of thing. Sure, amateur researchers are under no requirement to share their knowledge. I think they should, but that's just my opinion. Yet, they shouldn't expect a warm welcome coming to a place where there are many people wanting to know, as well as scoftics, all the while screaming "I HAVE PICS, I HAVE EVIDENCE, I KNOW" Just as they shouldn't expect your money for a book with no proof. Bada-bing, all kinds make a world and all that. And some "habitutators" have been hooted off by other ones ...leaving us with...well, just what is the Good Housekeeping Seal for Habituators? It's a problem. Evidence would resolve that. Way it is. I just can't see buying a 340-page sighting report when I can read thousands for free that sound, all I can say, more believable to me. And that's not saying it isn't happening. If the animal is real, I'll bet it is happening for the reason I said: we have habituated everything else, including all known apes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Yeah, well, what is it you find giggle worthy? That we don't take stories as proof, or something else? Thank you for your participation. Sorry, gosh Incorrigible..... Calm down. I enjoyed your little discourse back and forth.....it was refreshing and made me smile. Maybe a giggle was a bad choice.....but your take on libertarians taking over the world and leaving us all alone did make me giggle a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) "You Can Prove a Negative" http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf All he is saying is that you can prove a negative based on inductive reasoning. in other words- truth based on probabilities and what we know rather than absolute definitive truth. All a person has to say is "There is no Bigfoot because absolute proof doesn't exist" and that would be proving a negative. That article actually works more against your argument than for it. Edited September 11, 2013 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Sorry, gosh Incorrigible..... Calm down. I enjoyed your little discourse back and forth.....it was refreshing and made me smile. Maybe a giggle was a bad choice.....but your take on libertarians taking over the world and leaving us all alone did make me giggle a little. Oh, and you're good with the habituator's "us against the world" take? If so, I'll consider the source. If you wish me to think better of your opinion, bring something worthy. Oh, and I've never been anything other than calm. Thank you. As opposed to some of those opposed to my position. Edited September 11, 2013 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) The point he's making is if your claim that "you can't prove a negative" means that you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that certain things don't exist, then the claim is patently false. Not true, it is not a false claim. In terms of absolute proof you cannot prove a negative. By inductive reasoning though you can. That article basically gives strength to the skeptical argument. Their arguments of non-existence based on known science and known probabilities are valid. Based on inductive reasoning, that is all the proof they need to provide. Edited September 11, 2013 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 11, 2013 Author Share Posted September 11, 2013 My thread, my thread, what is happening to it. Oh well it is getting people to investigate things, dmaker serves a purpose in making us all a bit more versed in our logic. My brother was really good at playing devil's advocate to anything I adhered to that involved belief. I would have argued against the existence of Bigfoot quite strongly until about 3 years ago, when I began really thinking about the situation. I still have times of doubting my own experience, but when it's all said and done I realize that my doubt is just as hard to believe as my experience, and logic compels me to accept what I have experienced as the truth. Now since I have not seen the creature with my own eyes, and only heard them up close, I have room to question what I heard, but not since I was born, or moved into this house in 2002, have I heard anything remotely like what I heard that evening. And when I investigated and found the bigfoot sounds on Stan Courtney's page, Whoops#1 and #3 I knew that was exactly what I heard. To date no one has been able to tell me that was some other animal. So for now that experience stands as an encounter with an unkown primate. I will continue to provide you with any evidence I find in the future. Please give the possibility of this creatures existence a chance, look at the evidence critically, but realize that this goes far beyond some form of mass hysteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Sorry LCB, and hello, I am from cook county Ill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts