Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) DWA: "That it isn't proven yet, well, isn't really relevant." That's not a suffice explanation. You seem to rebuke everyone else's evidentiary submissions, based solely on your own merits of mind. Please provide us with a proven suffice explanation, to which we can lay this trackway to rest? If, "But there is one animal with which it is consistent. There's more than enough evidence to make that animal the leading candidate.", then one cannot call that "suspended judgement", can they? In your opinion, and without innuendo, what animal might you be referring to? Enough of the nonsensical ramblings, please do tell us which animal you're referring to? Edited March 5, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 ^^^you're doing it again. Gotta stop doing that. You can't say what it is, or offer a good explanation what known thing could possibly be doing it. Not a fluffy assumption, but proof that something known is doing it. Which means, simply, that you cannot reasonably assert that something known is doing it. One can so call that suspended judgment. If, of course, one understands the difference between evidence and proof, something bigfoot skeptics seem consistently unable to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Ohhhh, but you are asserting "But there is one animal with which it is consistent. There's more than enough evidence to make that animal the leading candidate.", a specific animal here, and you are implying that the trackway was made by it. In your opinion, and without innuendo, what animal might you be referring to? A very simple, answerable question for you, so please answer the question for us. DWA:"If, of course, one understands the difference between evidence and proof," ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns] noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. Edited March 5, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 OK, name me an animal with which this kind of sign is consistent, other than the one we are talking about here on ...oh, I don't know, The Bigfoot Forums. You can't. WHICH MEANS: This goes on the Bigfoot evidence pile - as a compelling, albeit inconclusiv, piece of evidence - unless you can prove that it doesn't. Of course, if they continue to confuse evidence and proof and think that "innuendo" has any place in this discussion, they may well simply have to be left alone to think what they very very badly want to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) What evidence/proof can you provide us with, based on your experience and knowledge of BF, to positively identify the tracks were made by BF? That would only help others understand what signs are unequivocally acceptable of its existence by you and the other proponents, of an unknown animal. Also, help me understand how an unknown species, can be proven to exist with inconclusive evidence? Doesn't 0+0=0? Edited March 5, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 ^^^You're doing it again. How many trackways have you seen/reviewed/thought about? Fewer than a lot of us by all appearances. It has been stated, over and over, what adds this to the bigfoot pile: The remoteness of the site, alone virtually ruling out a hoax. No evidence how a hoaxer could have either made those strides, or put those impressions in the snow by any other means leaving no signs of his presence. Evidence of toe impressions, with no reasonable alternative explanation. Foot size and stride length right in the ballpark of many other similar trackways that remain unexplained, many of the latter of which were found in conjunction with other compelling evidence.. Consistent characters with the gait and foot morphology of sasquatch, as derived by directly relevant scientists. If that's not enough for you...it isn't. For you. (Please don't make me go back to big letters. Oh, don't worry, I'm done.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) And we have what other 100% proof positive BF evidence to compare all what your stating? What am I doing? Seeking positive proof of your stance, that's all. Tell us about your tracking experiences, that fall under the category of unequivocal BF proof, and please provide such valuable proof for others to see. Edited March 5, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) ^^^You're doing it. AGAIN. Insisting on proof on your schedule RIGHT NOW will not cut ice with serious people. Even if you stamp your feet hard. Edited March 5, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) IBTL Edited March 5, 2014 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA,No YOUR doing it again.... -Foot size and stride length right in the ballpark of many other similar trackways that remain unexplained, many of the latter of which were found in conjunction with other compelling evidence.. -Consistent characters with the gait and foot morphology of sasquatch, as derived by directly relevant scientists,,, by not providing links to support your rebuttals. You're doing it. AGAIN. Insisting on proof on your schedule RIGHT NOW will not cut ice with serious people. Even if you stamp your feet hard. You'll say anything, whtever it takes to regain control of the debate. This fine gem though takes the cake by it's gross irrelavence. It's true to DWA condescending sarcasm and has no bearing on the subject. DWA, would you PLEASE, for once, directly address the issues set before you for the benefit of those who haven't seen a trackway; me being one of those not so privelidged. You give opinion but I need more substance and references so that I can form my own. This isn't the first time I've requested that you please provide some source material. Edited March 5, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) I forgot to point out that animals don't all do that, and when they do, the tracks largely overlap and are very easily diagnosed. These are big depressions with no tracks in between them, so this explanation doesn't suffice. So you're saying that Bigfoot has shape-shifting toes? They can leave tracks with 6 toes to only 2 whenever they feel like it? This case reminds me of another snow trackway in Utah that people were impressed with that also showed large cleft hooves in some of the tracks- http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/37214-utah-two-fisherman-find-trackway-and-hair-5-stride-in-snow/ It seems those moose never suffice when it comes down to wanting them to be Bigfoot tracks. Edited March 5, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) the trackway was made by a triathlete in training as thermalman stated above. Edited March 5, 2014 by ItsAsquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Hello ItsAsquatch, I hope the triathlete wasn't wearing a monkey suit. Risky business that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) "WHICH MEANS: This goes on the Bigfoot evidence pile - as a compelling, albeit inconclusiv, piece of evidence - unless you can prove that it doesn't." DWA No. Are you familiar with the principle of positive evidence? It is incorrect to offer negative evidence to disprove rival theories. Your burden is to prove that this is a bigfoot track because that is your claim. The null hypothesis remains in place until you can prove your claim. It does not work that your claim is proven until it is disproven. In the meantime it remains as unknown as to what made the trackway. To say it is evidence for bigfoot means that you must prove that is such. You are making the claim. I thought you understood science? Edited March 6, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker,I think what he's saying is that the the evidence is compelling while not being compelling? To me anyway "albeit inconclusive" means it is not THAT compelling. But maybe it's only the wording he uses. In my case I find it compelling........period. The length of the trackway, the characteristics of the path it takes, the varying stride dimensions in which some are nearly 6ft. The lack of drag marks.Does it say Sasquatch? Well, to me yes it does. Is it proof? No, of course not and no amount of wishing will make it so. Could something else have made that kind of trackway over that distance? Sure it's possible but dang it I've got to get off the fence sometime here I suppose. DWA twists and turns and squirms in order to not actually say "Sasquatch". Not me. In doing so though do I set myself up for getting knocked around? Sure I do, but someone has to, otherwise you guys won't have anything to do around this joint! LOL Edited March 6, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts