dmaker Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 How can one KNOW that something does not exist? "Know" is a relative term. Nobody knows in the purest sense if bigfoot does not exist. But there is something called the educated guess and this is how many questions of knowing and not knowing are answered. If I knew nothing about bigfoot lore and bigfoot history I would be likely to say something like "anything's possible". But after having been exposed to the issue over a substantial length of time I can weigh it either positively or negatively for than matter. You know this, we all know this, we all know the concept of the "educated guess." So perhaps it' better to say , "I know that each and every piece of evidence I've seen has not been suitably good enough to allow me to draw a positive conclusion in favor of bigfoot existing. How can one KNOW that something does not exist? By being a person who has never seen one of these creatures in the wild and accepting they do not exist. Which is where I am not willing to accept and will not until the truth is out. They exist and I have accepted it and it does not matter if any body else does not want to. The truth will always be on my side no matter how many times people try to hide it. Ok, you guys are just being stubborn. This whole thing didn't start with a hypothetical thread. It started with consistent reports dating back hundreds of years, including Native American history. You can run from, rationalize, deflect, and deny; but you can't dismiss the fact that a body of evidence exists. The best you can do is ignore its totality and attempt to discredit it item by item. That takes true subjectivity (note this is the opposite of objectivity). From my perspective, not ever having heard of such a thing as a bigfoot at the time when I first came face to face with one, I was pristinely unprepared for the reality. At that point I learned they existed, but still didn't know what the heck they were. And at this​ point the debate is moot to me. What does interest me is understanding what drives your subjectivity. What is it about the existence of bigfoot that leads you to so adamantly pursue denial that you jump into a forum about something in which you do not (want to) believe? ​ The body of evidence, as you put it, is mostly anecdotal. Any physical evidence that has been scientifically tested, to date, has failed to support the claim. There also remains evidence that is putative at best. For example, tracks. No track has ever lead to any objective, testable evidence that has supported the claim. Ever. In the history of bigfoot. Native legends are open to interpretation. I feel that many of them have been shoehorned to fit the bigfoot myth purposefully. Your own claim of encountering a bigfoot is just one more anecdote on the pile. There are plenty and plenty of those. Not a one of them has ever lead to any proof. This body of evidence is not being denied by me. I am simply describing it as I see it. How is that denial? How is it possible to deny something that has never been proven to exist? If it pleases you to call someone a denialist for properly categorizing evidence, then knock yourself out. 1
norseman Posted September 15, 2015 Admin Posted September 15, 2015 Never? Never ever? Or not in the Americas?
dmaker Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Do you have evidence for extant relict hominids anywhere, Norse? I know you really, really want to attach bigfoot to G.Blacki. You introduce the connection as often as you can. The truth is that the jury is still out as to whether G.Blacki was even bipedal. Added to which there is zero evidence of G.Blacki existing in North America. But don't let that stop you. Edited September 15, 2015 by dmaker
ShadowBorn Posted September 15, 2015 Moderator Posted September 15, 2015 How can one KNOW that something does not exist? "Know" is a relative term. Nobody knows in the purest sense if bigfoot does not exist. But there is something called the educated guess and this is how many questions of knowing and not knowing are answered. If I knew nothing about bigfoot lore and bigfoot history I would be likely to say something like "anything's possible". But after having been exposed to the issue over a substantial length of time I can weigh it either positively or negatively for than matter. You know this, we all know this, we all know the concept of the "educated guess." So perhaps it' better to say , "I know that each and every piece of evidence I've seen has not been suitably good enough to allow me to draw a positive conclusion in favor of bigfoot existing. How can one KNOW that something does not exist? By being a person who has never seen one of these creatures in the wild and accepting they do not exist. Which is where I am not willing to accept and will not until the truth is out. They exist and I have accepted it and it does not matter if any body else does not want to. The truth will always be on my side no matter how many times people try to hide it. Ok, you guys are just being stubborn. This whole thing didn't start with a hypothetical thread. It started with consistent reports dating back hundreds of years, including Native American history. You can run from, rationalize, deflect, and deny; but you can't dismiss the fact that a body of evidence exists. The best you can do is ignore its totality and attempt to discredit it item by item. That takes true subjectivity (note this is the opposite of objectivity). From my perspective, not ever having heard of such a thing as a bigfoot at the time when I first came face to face with one, I was pristinely unprepared for the reality. At that point I learned they existed, but still didn't know what the heck they were. And at this​ point the debate is moot to me. What does interest me is understanding what drives your subjectivity. What is it about the existence of bigfoot that leads you to so adamantly pursue denial that you jump into a forum about something in which you do not (want to) believe? ​ JDL You have no idea how wrong you about me. That I can assure you that I have seen these creatures more then once that there is no way that I can be denial. The ethics of bringing in a body is what worries me ,if not it would have been done a long time ago. If you can understand the meaning of life and how we all evolved in this world. If there is a proto type of humans then they are it, that started us who have lasted through all the worlds castraphies like the flood. All we have to do is look into The Book of life and we would know the truth. Yes, there is an agenda to keep them from reaching the world. If you say that there is not then ask why when there is proof why is it discounted to make it look foolish. Why does the powers to be wanted to make it out to be a ape istead of some type of sub human species or maybe a human that is evolved in such a way that we have no understanding. There are reason why blood studies keep coming back human and it has nothing to do with contamination. It is fear of the results being real and that there truly could be a creator.Math has proved it since numbers cannot lie, some thing aranged it that way. Now we have a half breed that runs next to us but does not compete with us. It is in it's DNA make up not too and only a creator with great power could have done this . This is the agenda that the powers that be do not want us to know as a people. Resear4ch 4 it your self. It is in plain site for all to see. Dmaker there is a big difference between the UFO alien agenda and Bigfoots. For one the aliens abduct and bring back the subjects and on top of that are the aliens really a flesh and blood being? No but for reason of the rules of this forum I cannot explain to what they are. I can say that they are a part of the fallen and are only here for deception. That has been that root cause of there agenda and that of light who we all know that we call the morning star. There is a heavy hand of deception on this world and it is being used to decieve everyone including the elect if you understand my cryptic message. If not then you need to study to understand . Being skeptical is great cause it makes you want to learn so that you will not be fooled. If you take out all the hoaxing you are left with what? you are left with what cannot be hoaxed which is truth. If you are left with what you cannot be explained then you left with what can only be true.What i saw and what people saw are only left with a perplexed mind of thought that cannot be explained. So when people tell them or I that we do not know what we saw you are basaclly telling us that we are liars. You are passing judgment on us because we all seen some thing that we our selves cannot explain. This happens over and over and it is a agenda that needs to stop. We all do not all know what there is to know all there is to know in this world. Every thing has reason to be here including these creatures. For what ever reason they perfer to stay hidden from our world and do I blame them NO not at all. Look at our world and what we have done to it .Is there peace in any one part on this earth. The Native Americans say that they only show up when ther is turmoil on earth. Do we have turmoil on earth? Is our world any better then a few years back? What if they are here for when man becomes istinct so that they can restart the human race again? Has any one ever thought about that . Did they survive the great ice age, or the great flood just so they can restart the human race? I do not and only the creator can answer that.
Guest DWA Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 Do you have evidence for extant relict hominids anywhere, Norse? Choke a horse. Virtually proof. To the scientifically minded, that is. Yes. The only thing we are missing is what will convert either the ignorant or those making for some Special reason a concerted effort not to think about this. Added to which there is zero evidence of G.Blacki existing in North America. Irrelevant. See, we have virtual proof of a - wait for it - extant relict hominid existing in North America. It came from...you know...somewhere. And as stated, the jury is out on the bipedality of Gigantopithecus (although evidence points significantly to, yes). Not on its existence.
dmaker Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 I'm interested in real proof, not virtual proof.
norseman Posted September 15, 2015 Admin Posted September 15, 2015 Do you have evidence for extant relict hominids anywhere, Norse? I know you really, really want to attach bigfoot to G.Blacki. You introduce the connection as often as you can. The truth is that the jury is still out as to whether G.Blacki was even bipedal. Added to which there is zero evidence of G.Blacki existing in North America. But don't let that stop you. Well.....LOL, you have to go look Dmaker. And then when you go look you cannot be satisfied with a I phone photo and a plaster cast if your lucky. And it doesn't matter what it is. We have plenty of examples of bipedal Apes running around the Earth. They EXISTED. The question then becomes, do they exist now? And if "yes", then where? The Sasquatch question isn't like asking if someone believes in a one eyed, one horned, flying purple people eater. We have no evidence that something like that exists or ever existed. Do we need proof? Absolutely. So what do you think many of us are doing?
Guest DWA Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 I'm wondering whether dmaker thinks that no airplane went into the sky before it was proven one could fly with a person in it. The whole science fail thing isn't at the core of bigfoot skepticism...it is bigfoot skepticism.
JDL Posted September 15, 2015 Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) My apologies, Shadowborn, I misinterpreted your earlier post. dmaker, so let's assume I don't know for a fact that they exist and tell me this..... What is making the tracks, in places where no one is expected to be, either to make them, or to stumble across them? Something is out there. What is it? Come up with something more likely that makes more sense than a hoaxer running around barefoot in the snow for miles without any expectation of anyone being around to get hoaxed. What is it that takes strides twice the length of a human stride and steps over four or five foot high fences and logs without disturbing the snow on them? If it isn't bigfoot, what is it? What else could it be? How can it be possible that every report, by every person that ever made one, is patently false, particularly when those reporting encounters include trained observers, such as LEOs, military members, and even wildlife biologists? How can every single person be blind, mistaken, lying, or addled? You are asking me to believe that every single person who has ever reported seeing one is wrong. What is the probability of that? Seriously? Do you not recognize that as the totality of the evidence mounts, the likelihood of your theoretical position diminishes correspondingly? Why should anyone listen to your, and yes I mean your own, highly improbable arguments? True, one hasn't been drug in by its ankles yet. But you've got to do better than to say "Everyone else is wrong." Do you not realize that your own positions require one to suspend belief in their fellow man, and in themselves? You are free to impugn anyone you want, but you must admit that your own position is rife with subjective dogma, assumption, and blatant dismissal of evidence as unreliable simply because of the subject matter. Edited September 15, 2015 by JDL 3
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 Bigfoot skepticism is blatantly irrational; it denies science, nature and human experience.
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) I'm wondering whether dmaker thinks that no airplane went into the sky before it was proven one could fly with a person in it. The whole science fail thing isn't at the core of bigfoot skepticism...it is bigfoot skepticism. You can keep comparing bigfoot to other things that are proven to exist all you want. It will not change the fact that bigfoot remains unproven. You could change that, you know, by providing some objective evidence for science to test. Instead you spend your time desperately trying to convince the world that bigfoot is virtually proven. My apologies, Shadowborn, I misinterpreted your earlier post. dmaker, so let's assume I don't know for a fact that they exist and tell me this..... What is making the tracks, in places where no one is expected to be, either to make them, or to stumble across them? Something is out there. What is it? Come up with something more likely that makes more sense than a hoaxer running around barefoot in the snow for miles without any expectation of anyone being around to get hoaxed. What is it that takes strides twice the length of a human stride and steps over four or five foot high fences and logs without disturbing the snow on them? If it isn't bigfoot, what is it? What else could it be? How can it be possible that every report, by every person that ever made one, is patently false, particularly when those reporting encounters include trained observers, such as LEOs, military members, and even wildlife biologists? How can every single person be blind, mistaken, lying, or addled? You are asking me to believe that every single person who has ever reported seeing one is wrong. What is the probability of that? Seriously? Do you not recognize that as the totality of the evidence mounts, the likelihood of your theoretical position diminishes correspondingly? Why should anyone listen to your, and yes I mean your own, highly improbable arguments? True, one hasn't been drug in by its ankles yet. But you've got to do better than to say "Everyone else is wrong." Do you not realize that your own positions require one to suspend belief in their fellow man, and in themselves? You are free to impugn anyone you want, but you must admit that your own position is rife with subjective dogma, assumption, and blatant dismissal of evidence as unreliable simply because of the subject matter. Mistakes, lies, poor perception, etc, etc can easily explain bigfoot in its entirety. Why should I trust your powers of perception? Why should I accept your highly subjective version of events that only you witnessed? Particularly when there is no evidence that any event even occurred? Hence, the problem inherent in anecdotal evidence. Why should I listen to your highly improbable account? There is no evidence to support it, so why should I listen to you? Why should I trust in your ability to interpret what you call tracks that step over high fences? Honestly, that sounds ridiculous to me. I am certainly not going to accept it as evidence of an unclassified, large, bipedal ape running around North America. Extend that logic to every other useless bigfoot anecdote and the entire thing comes tumbling down. Without decent supporting evidence, why would anyone believe a single bigfoot story? That seems to me to be the perplexing question here. Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker 4
JDL Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=princess+bride+inconceivable&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=8C5BAB4D3FAA2C7A9E348C5BAB4D3FAA2C7A9E34 Edited September 16, 2015 by JDL
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 I'm wondering whether dmaker thinks that no airplane went into the sky before it was proven one could fly with a person in it. The whole science fail thing isn't at the core of bigfoot skepticism...it is bigfoot skepticism. You can keep comparing bigfoot to other things that are proven to exist all you want. It will not change the fact that bigfoot remains unproven. You could change that, you know, by providing some objective evidence for science to test. Instead you spend your time desperately trying to convince the world that bigfoot is virtually proven. Evidence, testable. Tested, right, NAWAC? Right Roger? Right Bob? Tested. What I said: all that needs be done now is convince the ignorant. The ones paying attention? We're long there. Mistakes, lies, poor perception, etc, etc can easily explain bigfoot in its entirety. Only to people resolutely convinced not to read up and think. (What you responded to is the utter REFUTATION of your position.) Why should I trust your powers of perception? Why should I accept your highly subjective version of events that only you witnessed? Particularly when there is no evidence that any event even occurred? Hence, the problem inherent in anecdotal evidence. Why should I listen to your highly improbable account? There is no evidence to support it, so why should I listen to you? Why should I trust in your ability to interpret what you call tracks that step over high fences? Honestly, that sounds ridiculous to me. I am certainly not going to accept it as evidence of an unclassified, large, bipedal ape running around North America. Extend that logic to every other useless bigfoot anecdote and the entire thing comes tumbling down. Only to people resolutely convinced not to read up and think. Without decent supporting evidence, why would anyone believe a single bigfoot story? That seems to me to be the perplexing question here. Decent supporting evidence compelling unto proof. Look, your unwillingness to get where the knowledge, rigor, fun and excitement are here is not our fault. It's yours. Why should anyone trust YOU over scientists who have actually reviewed the evidence, shown their work, and pronounced it compelling, i.e., every single bingle gingle zingle scientist acquainted with it? [crickets] Yup. You can go on saying the sun's a Chinese heat lamp too. That's about as likely as bigfoot not being real.
dmaker Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) DWA, every single bingle gingle zingle time you talk about testing and evidence in the same sentence, you reveal your complete lack of understanding of both of those terms. Edited September 16, 2015 by dmaker 2
Guest DWA Posted September 16, 2015 Posted September 16, 2015 "Mistakes, lies, poor perception, etc, etc can easily explain bigfoot in its entirety." Really? Then...why *don't they*? PROVE that they do. Or else...just your blow and no show. Correct? Correctomundo.
Recommended Posts