Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) "Bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available." What evidence can prove something does not exist? Trying to prove a negative again? You can say that there is insufficient evidence to prove existence but by doing that you acknowledge there is some evidence and you don't want to do that. To say there is no evidence is intellectual dishonesty and you should know that. I think he does. I think bigfoot skeptics in general do. Problem is: they also think that reverse psychology works. There's lots of evidence for bigfoot, but none for that. There is no more telling sentence than this one: "Bigfoot does not exists based on the evidence available." [Correct as fixed] Nothing but denial driving that one, and zero logic to it. It basically says, "bigfoot doesn't exist until we find it." Which is like saying that I don't until you acknowledge me. Edited June 11, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted June 11, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 11, 2015 You find a track that is 15" inches or more in an area it was not made by a human going barefoot it is either a real Sasquatch print or a hoax. Interesting. I didn't realize 15" was the threshhold. I have found several 15" tracks I had tentatively dismissed as very large human which I have to re-think. They were definitely made by a walking thing via the walking process, there was no option for standing nearby to manufacture tracks otherwise. "Hmmmm." MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I think he does. I think bigfoot skeptics in general do. Problem is: they also think that reverse psychology works. There's lots of evidence for bigfoot, but none for that. There is no more telling sentence than this one: "Bigfoot does not exists based on the evidence available." [Correct as fixed] Nothing but denial driving that one, and zero logic to it. It basically says, "bigfoot doesn't exist until we find it." Which is like saying that I don't until you acknowledge me. The head on that thing is all out of proportion to the gold standard proportions of the PGF. It is shaky, distant ,shot through a windshield and only the upper part of the body is seen. The only thing it has going for it is that it was shot in the sunlight. If this is your idea of good evidence you have very, very low standards. I saw that video years ago and even as a proponent I tossed it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Um, the head on what thing? No specific piece of evidence is discussed there. If this is your idea of responding to a post, you are starting to understand why we aren't particularly flocking to your side of the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 "Bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available." What evidence can prove something does not exist? Trying to prove a negative again? You can say that there is insufficient evidence to prove existence but by doing that you acknowledge there is some evidence and you don't want to do that. To say there is no evidence is intellectual dishonesty and you should know that. 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. Heck we already know most of those old videos were shot down by the bigfoot community years ago. I'm left to conclude that the evidence these researchers and groups are pinning their hopes on is the same threadbare kind of stuff that looses traction under the objective eye of real scrutiny. Unless the current crop of dedicated researchers are on to evidence that's going to knock it out of the ballpark it's the same old story with a few new toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 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. The skeptic doesn't realize that this sentence has no meaning from a scientific standpoint. Difficult to parse it from an English one. 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. I think we have given ample evidence that we don't really care what someone who is not paying attention to the evidence thinks. You have evidence so you say so does DWA and what is DWA doing? Posting videos by other people. Crow, um, undermining your case here, I mean from a paying-attention standpoint. Show me one video I have posted on this thread. This should be good. Not that it should matter who shot the video one is posting, right Mr. Patterson? But I better leave that to folks demonstrating better comprehension, never mind folks not trying to get away with pretending no one has responded to their posts and dismantled their arguments. Crow. JOIN THE BOARD, CROW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Um, the head on what thing? No specific piece of evidence is discussed there. If this is your idea of responding to a post, you are starting to understand why we aren't particularly flocking to your side of the table. The video of the bogfoot in the distance on a rise walk and into the woods. Seen from the waist up and it is a winter snow cover. Shot through the windshield. Been around for years. Showed up here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Until right an proper evidence arrives, and I think you understand what I mean bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available. Right and proper according to who - you? Crow, your estimation of what others know about what you feel is right and proper is simply underwhelming. How in the universe can anyone else figure out how high a bar you have set on evidence for yourself? You can't or won't engage us when we ask you questions, but you want us to bend over backwards for you. We all know this your attempt at the "Tr" word (as in lives under the bridge or a type of fishing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) The video of the bogfoot [sIC] in the distance on a rise walk and into the woods. Seen from the waist up and it is a winter snow cover. Shot through the windshield. Been around for years. Showed up here today. Um hum, Crow, and so you are responding to a post by me, that references it not at all? Can't help you with that one. Until right an proper evidence arrives, and I think you understand what I mean bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available. I am not sure how much clearer we could make it that you are 180 degrees wrong, and that you give us no reason to care what you think. I'm not the only one saying this. Stop acting as if the posts responding to you never happened. You were dismissed about one page into this thread. Edited June 11, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Right and proper according to who - you? Crow, your estimation of what others know about what you feel is right and proper is simply underwhelming. How in the universe can anyone else figure out how high a bar you have set on evidence for yourself? You can't or won't engage us when we ask you questions, but you want us to bend over backwards for you. We all know this your attempt at the "Tr" word (as in lives under the bridge or a type of fishing). That would be a good place to begin and guess what I'm easy. There is a very real reason real science and real research does not take it seriously. If the little fleeting blurry graphics and the cute little gift piles are the best it's got to offer well than expect it to stay right where it is. You see I know what belief feels like but you don't know what disbelief feels like. Um hum, Crow, and so you are responding to a post by me, that references it not at all? Can't help you with that one. I am not sure how much clearer we could make it that you are 180 degrees wrong, and that you give us no reason to care what you think. I'm not the only one saying this. Stop acting as if the posts responding to you never happened. You were dismissed about one page into this thread. When you walk out of the woods with a bigfoot alive dead or anything in between then I'm 180 deg wrong. I'm not the one chasing monsters to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) The belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist can be just as religious and fragile as the belief that some entity does exist. I know this because I've dealt with ex-proponents on a skeptical forum and they all have that same religious mindset. Their reaction to some of the high quality frames from the PGF that I posted was really something. It seems like the better the evidence is, the more stuck in denial certain individuals become. Edited June 11, 2015 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted June 12, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 12, 2015 The belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist can be just as religious and fragile as the belief that some entity does exist. I know this because I've dealt with ex-proponents on a skeptical forum and they all have that same religious mindset. Their reaction to some of the high quality frames from the PGF that I posted was really something. It seems like the better the evidence is, the more stuck in denial certain individuals become. Yes ,that's how it will be for some. But for others? I do not know since I am no longer in there shoes .I just know what I learned and nothing more and if hente ( people) do not want to change or admit denial. Then maybe it is time for them to leave after presented with evidence that they no longer trust. How can one deny their own existence and except the existence of a creature that is so close to us that it is scary. After a personal sighting I am no longer that way. I have to accept what was dealt to me . I do not blame you Crow and to place doubt on everything, well that is just a natural human behavior that we all deal with on a daily basis. All one can do now is accept that maybe we are not dealing with a natural animal behavior. We are dealing with a creature that wants to learn and is responsible enough to give back. There are a lot of things that are not natural, yet this world will amaze us with it's odd ness in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist can be just as religious and fragile as the belief that some entity does exist. I know this because I've dealt with ex-proponents on a skeptical forum and they all have that same religious mindset. Their reaction to some of the high quality frames from the PGF that I posted was really something. It seems like the better the evidence is, the more stuck in denial certain individuals become. Only logical. I saw Moliere's Tartuffe at the theatre last night. It's a great expose of religious fanaticism...particularly when it deals with the opposite extreme. This is what happens when one's belief doesn't have a sound scientific basis. They fly from pillar to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 No but in biology 10,000 years is a flash. And crushed our former understanding of the life span of the Homo erection line. At 10,000 years your still looking around for living relatives, it's not odd or bizarre compared to say a T. rex...... I assume you mean homo erectus! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Until right an proper evidence arrives, and I think you understand what I mean bigfoot does not exist based on the evidence available. As for the social context all one needs to do is look at the current state of the art to understand that it has taken on a social aspect. After all does not the Finding Bigfoot crew welcome people into the club almost every week? Only the original researchers were loners. Who is the judge of proper evidence? What one person can declare it authentic? Think about it, most of us will be left to accept proof by what we are told to by some authority on TV, or through published scientific literature. If the later, one will have to be able to comprehend the science. So people can be convinced by just the science and evidence that might be less than your particular standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts