Guest thermalman Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 There are already threads started about Patty's realism. You can take people to task over there if you wish, or just sit back and read them?
Guest Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 You have read correctly and I maintain the PGF is real. I also have stated more than once that the species went extinct. So my argument is that there is no bigfoot out there any more than there is T-Rex. If you need an extinction date 1978. Interesting to know you still feel the Patterson-Gimlin footage is legit. That's cool. But........how do you know there are ZERO sasquatch still clinging on in the deepest, remotest and most rugged spots of, say, British Columbia and south east Alaska or whatnot? Why do you think there are none.....zero......left anywhere? I have no idea how many there still are.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 23, 2014 Author Posted December 23, 2014 The point of bringing up the Patterson Film is simply to prove my point, there are honest skeptics and not so honest ones. If you really want to disprove the existence of this creature, or to simply refute what evidence this community holds as valid, then perhaps it is you who should venture to another thread, I for one started this thread with the intent of moving well beyond such objections and hopefully to a serious discussion with the knowers and believers. I will however entertain honest arguments if they presented to me, but as far as I can tell there are no takers.
Guest thermalman Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 I'm sure you'd get takers in the Tar Pit. In fact, I know you would, 100%.
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 23, 2014 Posted December 23, 2014 Interesting to know you still feel the Patterson-Gimlin footage is legit. That's cool. But........how do you know there are ZERO sasquatch still clinging on in the deepest, remotest and most rugged spots of, say, British Columbia and south east Alaska or whatnot? Why do you think there are none.....zero......left anywhere? I have no idea how many there still are. The sheer lack of acceptable to science evidence.
norseman Posted December 23, 2014 Admin Posted December 23, 2014 The whale bones were skrimshaw done in the 1800's and in the possession of the family whose ancestor made the collection. I lived at the time in a former whaling town on the north shore of Long Island. They had photos and other artifacts to support the collection. Furthermore there was a whaling museum in town. There is a huge difference between this kind of artifact and a random footprint cast or tuft of hair. The whale skrimshaw was bone not a copy of itself. Once again using a Blue Whale as an example was not a good example although i didn't bring whales into the conversation somebody else did. As for bipedal bones sure there's us and our predecessors. We are the only one's left though. Again it takes very little to believe in Australopithecus when the fossil evidence is studied. Non of which exists for bigfoot. Bigfoot evidence is a kind of wishful thinking. Look I'll let anybody see anything they thing they need or want to see but so far everything seen or perceived to have been seen has resulted in nothing. We've got hundreds of hours of bigfoot videos on youtube. We've got bigfoot making structures and leaving piles of stones and offerings to be seen and yet the being is always absent. Doesn't that tell you anything? Doesn't that seem a bit shall we say fabricated? You have read correctly and I maintain the PGF is real. I also have stated more than once that the species went extinct. So my argument is that there is no bigfoot out there any more than there is T-Rex. If you need an extinction date 1978. Well no we have bones that fit the description in the fossil record. We also are finding new species all the time such as Denisovians and the Hobbit. But you could be right that something did exist and went extinct right under our noses.
Guest DWA Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 The sheer lack of acceptable to science evidence. smh. s.m.h. Science hasn't confirmed it so it isn't real. One of us seems to understand a lot LOT more about science and scientists than the other, and it's not the one reading this response to his post.
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 smh. s.m.h. Science hasn't confirmed it so it isn't real. One of us seems to understand a lot LOT more about science and scientists than the other, and it's not the one reading this response to his post. The bigfoot proponent community needs to tighten up it's criteria for what is proper evidence. If the science/mindset that bigfoot proponents practice was applied to NASA we would never have gone to the moon. I'm sorry to say it but the arguments of "we don't know everything, science isn't the last word, has grown a bit long in the tooth. The same exact arguments have been bantered about for over half a century now. Science does indeed know. That is to say in order for science to endorse something there are rules and disciplines that must be applied. Without this we would still be in the dark ages. There is a certain attitude prevalent today that ignorance and misinformation is a valid modality. Or to put it another way they say things like if you believe strongly in a falsehood then that falsehood is as true as a proven truth. Science does not work that way thankfully. So no I won't side with the folks showing videos of rock piles gifted to them by bigfoot and all the other cuteness floating around now concerning bigfoot. Let those folks do what they do and believe what they believe but remember those believers are not producing a real living animal so it's just show biz. That's why I believe in science and trust it more than whatever is in second place.
Incorrigible1 Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 As much as it might pain an eye-witness "knower," reports are anecdotal and inconclusive. The reading, classification, and promulgation of reports isn't science. They might be an interesting accumulation, but anecdotes necessarily do not constitute "science."
Guest Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) The sheer lack of acceptable to science evidence. But what actual evidence would you expect there to be if just a few remnants were clinging on in remote hardly ever visited terrain? I agree there can't be tens of thousands without the species being catalogued but how about small numbers that are dying out and may be gone forever in 50 years? By the way, a number of 'scientists' find the evidence acceptable and/or at the least interesting enough to keep an open mind about the subject. Edited for typos. **** this German keyboard!! PS) Why the date of 1978?? Edited December 24, 2014 by Neanderfoot
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 24, 2014 Author Posted December 24, 2014 Crowlogic, you sound more like a devils advocate than a skeptic in this instance, but you are correct in your conclusion that in most cases the evidence does not stand the test of science, but there are those cases that do.
norseman Posted December 24, 2014 Admin Posted December 24, 2014 The point of bringing up the Patterson Film is simply to prove my point, there are honest skeptics and not so honest ones. If you really want to disprove the existence of this creature, or to simply refute what evidence this community holds as valid, then perhaps it is you who should venture to another thread, I for one started this thread with the intent of moving well beyond such objections and hopefully to a serious discussion with the knowers and believers. I will however entertain honest arguments if they presented to me, but as far as I can tell there are no takers. I understand your frustration, but this forum does not support that template of a proponent only debate.
Guest DWA Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 As much as it might pain an eye-witness "knower," reports are anecdotal and inconclusive. The reading, classification, and promulgation of reports isn't science. They might be an interesting accumulation, but anecdotes necessarily do not constitute "science." Wrong on so many levels it is Christmas so let's not. About as succinct a total misread of the picture as could be written.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 24, 2014 Author Posted December 24, 2014 It was very difficult for me to come to the conclusion that bigfoot were real in any part of the country, much less near me, and not in the least instance did I ever imagine them to be in my marsh in my backyard. As one whose belief system basically spelled out that evolution could not have been mans origin, I fought hard to dismiss any notion of this creature. The scientific evidence which lead me to investigate was simple. Firstly the foot print evidence, which is indeed convincing in some cases, exhibiting all the marks of a biological creature, that is very hard to dismiss, especially when tracks have been found in succession in remote wilderness areas.
Guest DWA Posted December 24, 2014 Posted December 24, 2014 (edited) This is what I mean when I talk about misreading the evidence. Random wildcat lies hoaxes and misidentifications do not - never have, in the recorded history of our species and of course before, record or no - behave like this. Period. The reading, careful parsing and classification of reports, just like the careful study of the footprints and other forensic evidence, are the absolute purest essence of science. This is the thing I am saying when I question the blanket-toss of the word "scientist" over people who really are just well-qualified techies, trained to accept the canon, defend its immutability at all costs, and advance the science only along the narrow lines prescribed by the canon. That's science, but it's not the kind of science to which true scientists restrict themselves. If one wants to see how true scientists operate, one should read Richard Dawkins, John Bindernagel and Jeff Meldrum, and no, it isn't an accident that two of them are hairy-hominid advocates. Edited December 24, 2014 by DWA
Recommended Posts