salubrious Posted June 12, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2015 The bigfoot community does not readily understand that there is a rational level of evidence quality to just about every issue open to question. I put it to the forum to show some good evidence and thus far only one member has posted something they themselves directly observed and documented. You have evidence so you say so does DWA and what is DWA doing? Posting videos by other people. I still like the Salt Fork Tricopter video. I've not seen that one debunked either. I do regard it as most evidence (other than the PGF) as inconclusive. ^Patty was filmed out in broad daylight strolling across a sandbar in the open. Do you believe the PGF is real? I don't see it as a matter of belief. Once you work out the joint locations, you know that the PGF couldn't be faked. Its my surmise that skeptics in general don't take the time to do that, so they are left with the 'man in a suit' hypothesis (which is a lot more difficult explanation than an actual BF). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'm wondering why Crow keeps putting up photos of animals we all know about, as if this is advancing some kind of point. Well, it is. But the point is about him, and why I am restricting commentary about him to threads like this one, and keeping it out of the serious ones. I wouldn't expect you to understand but try reading what is posted along with the animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) What Crow apparently has difficulty with - bigfoot skeptics in general do - is skepticism. They recoil from it because they are not skeptics but in fact True Believers in what they are comfortable believing. Their trust in science is hollow; they do not understand it or how it works and are thus the eternal sycophants of "scientists" who are not, when it comes to this, but rather spouting belief and not doing their science. The PGF, see, is real, and the animal is proven. I know this the way any skeptic does: all the evidence supports it, and to think anything else is ludicrous, from a purely scientific standpoint, as no evidence supports that. Show me I'm wrong? I'll change my tune in a second. *That* is the skeptic and the scientist talking. As long as the evidence supports X, support X. As soon as it supports Y, switch to Y. But switch on nothing but the evidence. No one who follows evidence and science could follow them through the PGF and think anything other than: proof of sasquatch. Edited June 12, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Is this good enough for the old Crow? Resolution leaves a lot to be desired. Observe the wildlife photos I've posted and you'll have an idea of there the bar needs to be raised. That said very Todd Standing......... I don't know crow, I mean if bigfoot were standing there instead of the moose, people would just say it had to be photo shopped or a guy in a suit because bigfoot still doesn't exist, so on and so forth. It's just a matter of how far you want to go with the cynicism. You think so? Maybe at first but then again bigfoot culture has a lot to live down. We're so long overdue for something like that it's laughable. What Crow apparently has difficulty with - bigfoot skeptics in general do - is skepticism. They recoil from it because they are not skeptics but in fact True Believers in what they are comfortable believing. Their trust in science is hollow; they do not understand it or how it works and are thus the eternal sycophants of "scientists" who are not, when it comes to this, but rather spouting belief and not doing their science. The PGF, see, is real, and the animal is proven. I know this the way any skeptic does: all the evidence supports it, and to think anything else is ludicrous, from a purely scientific standpoint, as no evidence supports that. Show me I'm wrong? I'll change my tune in a second. *That* is the skeptic and the scientist talking. As long as the evidence supports X, support X. As soon as it supports Y, switch to Y. But switch on nothing but the evidence. No one who follows evidence and science could follow them through the PGF and think anything other than: proof of sasquatch. You have it right. Bring in that which you pontificate about and the game changes. But until then yes we have no bigfoot. Edited June 12, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 You're not supposed to hold your breath and turn bluer. You are supposed to *prove your point.* Show Your Best Evidence, If You Please. You do know that none of us has to convince you to be correct, right. You do know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So you do agree that science does not take this seriously. That could be one major part of the problem with this phenom. LOL! I missed that on his first post. Too funny! Science isn't needed for it. That's just an excuse. There are many groups out there boasting all kinds of things. The one thing they do not do is supply proof. But to hear what NAWAC has to say they're nipping at the heels of the beast. They've got it knocked so to speak. We don't even have to bring in science, the habituators who know them intimately. Who needs science? Science is just going to spoil the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We don't even have to bring in science, the habituators who know them intimately. IMO, the only ones who believe habituators are the habituators themselves and those who are willing to believe anything they read or are told. You'll notice there claims are never considered as evidence when evidence is talked about. The knowers, if they are being truthful and have really seen what they think they have seen, are the lucky ones. For the rest of us who are skeptical but hopeful, the odds are there is no such thing as bf. That being said, playing the odds doesn't always pay off. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 'You'll notice there claims" Ooops, "their" claims. :-) t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) You're not supposed to hold your breath and turn bluer. You are supposed to *prove your point.* Show Your Best Evidence, If You Please. You do know that none of us has to convince you to be correct, right. You do know that. Until somebody brings one in this will suffice as the outcome of the evidence. Edited June 13, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I don't see it as a matter of belief. Once you work out the joint locations, you know that the PGF couldn't be faked. Its my surmise that skeptics in general don't take the time to do that, so they are left with the 'man in a suit' hypothesis (which is a lot more difficult explanation than an actual BF). The point was that the PGF directly contradicts the claims being made here about what Bigfoot will do/won't do. Not all Bigfoot believers think the PGF is real, so that's why I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 So, the 'evidence' needs to be dumbed down that only a high res, close up nature photo will do it for you, Crow? lol. Obviously no one believes you either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 So, the 'evidence' needs to be dumbed down that only a high res, close up nature photo will do it for you, Crow? lol. Obviously no one believes you either. The evidence needs to be sharpened up, cleared up, and much of the entire contingency needs to be smartened up. If you are happy with what constitutes good bigfoot evidence more power to you. Remember the world outside of the bigfoot community is not necessarily laughing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 The point was that the PGF directly contradicts the claims being made here about what Bigfoot will do/won't do. Not all Bigfoot believers think the PGF is real, so that's why I asked. Has anyone ever worked out the odds for Patterson's success? They are long odds. A rented camera, broad daylight, following a tip from Ray Wallace, ending with a film longer than virtually anything since. The science of mathematics isn't going to be kind to it but real science is never kind to bigfootism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 The evidence needs to be sharpened up, cleared up, and much of the entire contingency needs to be smartened up. If you are happy with what constitutes good bigfoot evidence more power to you. Remember the world outside of the bigfoot community is not necessarily laughing with you. Naw. Blobsquatch pics are better for perpetuating discontent amongst the _________(fill in the blank). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Naw. Blobsquatch pics are better for perpetuating discontent amongst the _________(fill in the blank). Of what value is discontent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts