Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Daniel Perez

Information Wanted: Roger Patterson

Recommended Posts

Guest

Im still waiting for the hammer to fall, and the subsequent storm of words from EVERY corner, Sweaty..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drew

 

 

 

Can you handle this simple question, with a 'Yes' or 'No' answer?... :) ...

 

Do you think there is a "reasonable degree-of-probability" that Bigfoot exists, within North America? 

 

He has already answered this 3 times in the last page and a half.

 

No.  He thinks the probability is between .1 and 1% , while he may claim that it is a reasonable chance that Bigfoot exists, others might not.

 

I believe it is completely unreasonable to think that Bigfoot exists.

I would put the probability at ( :santa: /1)% chance that bigfoot exists.  Yes, that is the odds that Santa Claus is real, over 1.  

 

I think the probability that Bigfoot exists is; Santa Claus Over One.

 

zprc9k.jpg

Edited by Drew
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

kitakaze wrote:

 

 

Certainly not with you... :) I value my time...and debating the weight of the evidence, looking to find agreement, with someone who blatantly contradicts themselves is a complete waste of time. 

 

Excellent. A complete waste of time with someone you think blatantly contradicts themselves. You thought it worth your time with someone you think contradictory to ask about probabilities with sightings. This was worth your time...

 

 

 

SweatyYeti, on 10 Nov 2014 - 1:04 PM, said:snapback.png

 

Is it reasonable to think that Brian Gosselin is being honest, in his (multiple witness) sighting testimony?  'Yes' or 'No'? 

 

 

 

 

SweatyYeti, on 29 Oct 2014 - 9:10 PM, said:snapback.png

How about David Griffin....is it reasonable to think that he is being honest in his testimony, when he says...."I saw what I saw...and, I know what I saw"....(at about the 3:50 mark)...

 

 

 

 

With me is precisely who you wanted to address the probabilities. Hypocrisy defined.

 

And...in "perfect harmony" with that...

 

 

Simply believing in Bigfoot is just fine. Fundamentalism is not. It's an intolerant, radical and abhorrent. Acting as if there is only one explanation reasonable for Gosselin and Griffin's accounts and that is Bigfoot, and that to suggest otherwise face to face would result in cowering on the part of the non-believer is what parks one in a place where you don't belong at the table of reasonable discussion amongst people willing to engage in meaningful and respectful discussion. Your arguments should be shunned as extremist, radical,  indoctrinated fundamentalism  promoting nothing but hatred and intolerance. It is Fortean fervour at its worst, as if we are all sheeple for not following your "maverick thinking."

 

It's Righteous Bigfootery extremism at its ugliest and it should be shunned every time it rears its ugly, intolerant head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

 

Wrong...I don't think there has been any "UFO war" fought over the Earth. Where did I say that I did?? 

 

 

You can spell it out if you like. Will it be less woo than Martian pupils?

 

As for UFO's....I think there is evidence of something going on in the skies, that we don't have all the 'info' on.

But, in this NASA video, taken on the STS-48 Shuttle mission...there is definitely, beyond all doubt, something strange happening....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiDvkB_rG-Q

There's an object which comes into view at 1:31 into the video, coming across the physical edge of the Earth. (Not the top, visible edge, which is the atmosphere.) The physical edge of the earth is marked with a white 'registration marker'. It's located below the "STS" in the title.

The fact that the object is seen coming over the edge of the Earth, tells us it's a large object, far away from the Shuttle...rather than a small object, near the Shuttle. It gives us a 3rd dimension, and allows for speed measurements to be made of it.

The object is very real...and accelerates very fast, off into space, at a rate that would crush an astronaut...changing direction abruptly, in a way unlike any type of spacecraft that we know about.

In addition, it reactes to a flash of light from something on the shuttle....so the shuttle and the object are interacting with each other.

It's a safe bet that the shuttle mission involved more than just what NASA made public.

 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3559680&postcount=13257

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I cannot prove one way or another if Bigfoot is real and have no clue what the odds are of Bigfoot being real.

 

I still say what is being missed in this "What % chance Bigfoot is real?"  is the ignoring of the many other Q's:

 

Here are just some of the associated Q's :

 

Chance every single witness that comes forward --in spite of being called names and other ridicule-- saw nothing more than a bear in the woods or whatever?

Chance every single Bigfoot track in all of history has been faked or on some occasions misidentified?

Chance a filmed subject in 1967 can be replicated with 1967 methods?

Chance a hoaxer in 1967 makes a film when the most stable portion of the film is the closest look at the creature?

Chance a legend exists in the cultures at the time of such a creature going back some 100's of years?

Chance all of the woods of the PNW have been fully searched when planes in those areas have not been found in decades lost in those same areas?

Chance great amount of money and effort has been truly applied to the search for Bigfoot?

and so on.....

 

If all we are considering is  "What are the chances of an unknown animal being in the woods?" we may come up with one guess.  That guess may be close, true or completely off the mark. The reason is they only consider Just that Q.   But when we consider the additional facts that must be true that does change the odds.  Just take a chance encounter with a 'bigfoot' by an witness who stumbles across what they think is a bigfoot.

1) they come forward in spite of ridicule 2) they are convinced what they saw (leading to at least some consideration they saw something 3) There is a chance what they and many equally suited actually did see something unknown.  To say Bigfoot could not be real is to say all the eye witnesses are either hoaxed, misidentifying, crazy, or whatever.  All of them are mistaken in all cases in all of history.

 

If you take 100 tickets and put then in a bucket.  You buy 1 ticket leaving you with a 1 in 100 chance of winning. Thus Kit might put bigfoot's existence as high as 1%.  Yet,  each additional issue that comes up possibly in favor of Bigfoot is like buying additional tickets.  In no time at all, you might have 30, 40 ,70 tickets out of 100.

 

Don't be so quick to dismiss the chances until you consider everything else that MUST ALSO be dismissed to make Bigfoot have a 0% chance to exist.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Im still waiting for the hammer to fall, and the subsequent storm of words from EVERY corner, Sweaty..

 

 

As we all are, Itsa... ;)

 

The only "storm of words" around here, though, is coming from the corner that kitakaze has talked himself into... :lol:

 

 

 

You can spell it out if you like.

 

You can POINT it out, if you like.

 

You wrote:

 

orbital UFO war

 

 

Again....where have I ever mentioned a "war" taking place, in the skies??

 

Did I state that, in that particular post?

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Excellent. A complete waste of time with someone you think blatantly contradicts themselves. You thought it worth your time with someone you think contradictory to ask about probabilities with sightings.

 

 

I consider it worth my time to ask you questions with the purpose of exposing your contradictions.

 

That is 'Bigfoot FUN-damentalism'....in my book. :)

 

 

I don't consider it worth my time asking you questions for the purpose of 'finding agreement' on what the evidence weighs.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

 

Fundamentalism is not. It's an intolerant, radical and abhorrent. Acting as if there is only one explanation reasonable for Gosselin and Griffin's accounts and that is Bigfoot, and that to suggest otherwise face to face would result in cowering on the part of the non-believer is what parks one in a place where you don't belong at the table of reasonable discussion amongst people willing to engage in meaningful and respectful discussion. Your arguments should be shunned as extremist, radical,  indoctrinated fundamentalism  promoting nothing but hatred and intolerance. It is Fortean fervour at its worst, as if we are all sheeple for not following your "maverick thinking."

 

It's Righteous Bigfootery extremism at its ugliest and it should be shunned every time it rears its ugly, intolerant head.

 

 

And, what if Brian Gosselin...or someone else who claims to have had a clear, unambiguous Bigfoot sighting...maintains, in a strong manner, that he/she saw a real, live Bigfoot? :popcorn:

 

Is it o.k. with you, if they maintain their testimony in a strong manner....and try to convince others of what they claim to have seen? If they do so...are they "promoting hatred"??

 

After all, according to you...there is a "reasonable probability" that some of these sighting reports are legitimate. :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

He has already answered this 3 times in the last page and a half.

 

No.  He thinks the probability is between .1 and 1% , while he may claim that it is a reasonable chance that Bigfoot exists, others might not.

 

 

 

 

Well, in post #83, Drew....kit answered my 'Yes or No' question with a... 'Yes and No'...

 

 

 

Within, yes, such as the kermode bear. Across, no, such as is reported. That's ludicrous. 

 

 

I don't consider that an answer.  I asked simply what 'weight' he gives the evidence...(as a whole)...for Bigfoot 

 

I didn't specify any particular type of evidence....from any particular person/s....so it should be obvious that the question is regarding the entire body of Bigfoot evidence, as a whole. 

 

kit should be able to state whether he deems the 'body of evidence' to carry a "reasonable probability" for Bigfoot's existence.....or not.  ("Reasonable" being only a rough approximation of weight.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...