Jump to content

Patty's Feet.....and The Footprints (Part 2)


Guest Admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

We apparently have an impasse where we are unable to agree.  Some see certain items as proof, where as others dismiss them.  

I can live with that, it's all part of a discussion.   

Edited by Wheellug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is unproven because there is no proof. Your personal interpretation of proof is irrelevant.

 

 

Bigfoot is unproven???  :o

 

Gee, I hate when they say that. They're so......right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you dig it?

 

 

The idea of digging the tracks deeper (and remaining undetected and leaving no traces doing it) makes little sense to me. 

 

We are told this was to suggest a heavier creature than a man in a suit.  The digging the tracks deeper by this magic undetectable means might somehow work on consistent soil.  What is there about Bluff creek to suggest the soil did not vary from step to step.  I can imagine a couple of steps would be deeper sand while another step might have a higher rocky content in it or more densely packed.   We know there was major hard packed gravel road nearby that barely left prints or traces.  Maybe some scuffs.  Bob and Co. cannot see under the sand and soil. The figure walked and left the prints.  If we believe the prints were dug deeper to suggest a heavier creature wouldn't this have to occur in each print.  Hard pack soil is hard to dig into.

 

It seems to me this idea is too much trouble to risk even trying it.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bigfoot is unproven because there is no proof. Your personal interpretation of proof is irrelevant.

dmaker,

 

Is there any precedence for anything like this...ever...something unproven because there was no proof ? Or...isn't that the case for all new discoveries...be they two hundred years old or two hours old ?

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used that phrase to illustrate to Wheelug that his personal idea of proof does not matter. Bigfoot is unproven, therefore there is a lack of proof. Despite what he may personally think qualifies as proof to him and to others.

 

Of course something is unproven until there is proof. The case for bigfoots existence is sunk due to a lack of evidence where it should be there. This makes it unlikely that bigfoot exists, therefore the conclusion must be that, until further evidence may be provided to meet the burden of proof, bigfoot does not exist. The burden of proof has not been met.  You may wish to tack a "yet" on to the end of that, which is fine. It is merely wishful thinking and does nothing to increase the odds that evidence necessary to satisfy the burden of proof will ever be provided.

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaker,

 

So...there is precedence. I feel no need for tackin' on your "yet"....as I, like others, an I'm sure yourself, know all things change.

 

dmaker...you said it "..makes it unlikely that bigfoot exists.." but not impossible ?

 

Pat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaker wrote:

 

 

This makes it unlikely that bigfoot exists, therefore the conclusion must be that, until further evidence may be provided to meet the burden of proof, bigfoot does not exist. 

 

 

You seem confused, dmaker. 

 

In a single statement...you describe the probability of Bigfoot's existence as an 'indefinite'....and then describe it as a 'definite'.

 

Which is it?? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dmaker wrote:

 

 

This makes it unlikely that bigfoot exists, therefore the conclusion must be that, until further evidence may be provided to meet the burden of proof, bigfoot does not exist. 

 

 

You seem confused, dmaker. 

 

In a single statement...you describe the probability of Bigfoot's existence as an 'indefinite'....and then describe it as a 'definite'.

 

Which is it?? :popcorn:

 

Lets be honest, there is no way you can question his meaning about that unless you want to act obtuse and try to argue semantics.  It's pretty obvious what he means there.  This is a perfect case of trying to disagree or argue for the sake of disagreeing or arguing.

 

Saying its "unlikely that bigfoot exist" implies that there is at least the chance it could later be proven to exist.

 

Saying  "until further evidence may be provided to meet the burden of proof, bigfoot does not exist."  Clearly states that as of NOW, science does not acknowledge this creature exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TWIST wrote:

 

 

Saying  "until further evidence may be provided to meet the burden of proof, bigfoot does not exist."  Clearly states that as of NOW, science does not acknowledge this creature exists. 

 

 

Sorry, TWIST...but the two statements...."Bigfoot does not exist" and "Mr. Science does not acknowledge Bigfoot"....are not the same.

 

They have different meanings.

 

As worded....dmaker's statement does not make sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor featured this topic
  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...