Jump to content
xspider1

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?

Recommended Posts

dmaker

How many times deeper were the tracks?

 

 

No one has even gotten so far as to demonstrate that bigfoot actually exists.  So, there's that...   In the face of that stark fact, it seems rather silly to argue about tracks.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

The ol' bigfoot doesn't exist so the evidence is bogus !  Goes perfect with folks haven't seen them because I said so !  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

How many times deeper were the tracks?

 

Its been posted countless times already and your not knowing just shows how little interest you have in the subject and how worthless your opinions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

No one has even gotten so far as to demonstrate that bigfoot actually exists. 

 

Sure - Donskoy explained why Patty was real and you had no rebuttal to give because you said you did not have the expertise to do so. A lack of understanding on your part does not rule out that Bigfoot hasn't been shown to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

How many times deeper were the tracks?

 

Its been posted countless times already and your not knowing just shows how little interest you have in the subject and how worthless your opinions are.

 

LOL. Do you really think that I don't know how many times--daily probably--you post how deep the tracks were?

 

It was a joke.

"Sure - Donskoy explained why Patty was real and you had no rebuttal to give because you said you did not have the expertise to do so. A lack of understanding on your part does not rule out that Bigfoot hasn't been shown to exist." BH

 

 

No. Donskoy expressed an opinion as to why he believes that bigoot is real. That is not the same thing as demonstrating the actual existence of a creature. 

 

 

Quote function seems a bit flaky again today.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

It's simple Pat, you cannot see something that does not exist. 

And you can see things that do.

 

I often wonder how skeptics come to the belief that BF does not exist. Heck, I'm a skeptic, only thing is I know they exist. When I see someone say that they know it does not, its obvious to me that their statement is based on belief without proof, rather than knowingness.

 

Put another way, a skeptic will not make a decision of existence or not. Instead, if skeptical of existence, they would test each case for existence to see if it falls apart or not. I readily concede that most examples fail (the PGF, IMO/IME, does not).

 

I don't see that happening much. What I see a lot of, is people that have decided without any proof whatsoever, that BF does not exist. That's not actually a skeptical position. Its a belief and that's all.

 

We have the PGF: anyone can see it. Its evidence (and IMO/IME, also proof). A skeptic would examine the evidence and the data collected against known facts. Here's an example: Patty has arms. They can be compared to human arms, even of those in ape suits. The same is true of her head, waist, thigh and shin length, overall length of arms compared to the same with humans.

 

If a skeptic were to compare those things, a skeptic would find that there is a serious problem with the theory that Patty is a 'bloke in a suit'. Bill Munns and others have covered this problem at length. However, to see this issue, a skeptic has to cause his hand to move, and do the data collection that any science would require.

 

I don't see that happening here, ergo, therefore IMO there are no skeptics here, only believers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

What could possibly constitute proof of non-existence?

 

You have to weigh the evidence available. When you do that, does the evidence support existence, or social construct? The evidence available--including the stunning absence of evidence that should be present and is not--does not support the existence of bigfoot. 

 

There is not one single shred of objective biological evidence. Not one. Name one other extant large North American megafauna that you can say that about.

 

 

Anecdotes are useless. 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

"What I see a lot of, is people that have decided without any proof whatsoever, that BF does not exist."

 

My opinions are based on the fact that there is no proof, whatsoever, that BF does exist.

 

Salub's claims of seeing two at close range, Bill's film analysis, a bigfoot hunter who has never caught a bigfoot; no rational person would accept these as any form of proof.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

^^You can't see something that does not exist.  That is true.  But you can see things that you mistake for something else and you can see things that are generated by the mind.  Lastly you can say you saw something and be fabricating it.  But when we discuss bigfoot honestly without excuses we must do so with the common knowledge that there is no evidence that has ever been accepted by the real scientific community as credible.  So when I say bigfoot does not exist I say so having waded through the swamp of bigfoot evidence that has become available to mere mortals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

The non-existence of an unknown is impossible to prove. You can give whatever characteristics you want to it and there isn't a consensus in mainstream science on anything with the name "Bigfoot".

If you're claiming there isn't a new and unlisted species of primate here in North America, then I would say you're most likely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ And that is because bigfoots are genetically modified humans--modified by aliens. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^^You can't see something that does not exist.  That is true.

 

 

Finally...we're making progress. :popcorn:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

^ I find his abbreviated posts much easier to bear !

 

Thanks SweatyYeti !

:drinks: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

 

It's simple Pat, you cannot see something that does not exist. 

And you can see things that do.

 

I often wonder how skeptics come to the belief that BF does not exist. Heck, I'm a skeptic, only thing is I know they exist. When I see someone say that they know it does not, its obvious to me that their statement is based on belief without proof, rather than knowingness.

 

Put another way, a skeptic will not make a decision of existence or not. Instead, if skeptical of existence, they would test each case for existence to see if it falls apart or not. I readily concede that most examples fail (the PGF, IMO/IME, does not).

 

I don't see that happening much. What I see a lot of, is people that have decided without any proof whatsoever, that BF does not exist. That's not actually a skeptical position. Its a belief and that's all.

 

We have the PGF: anyone can see it. Its evidence (and IMO/IME, also proof). A skeptic would examine the evidence and the data collected against known facts. Here's an example: Patty has arms. They can be compared to human arms, even of those in ape suits. The same is true of her head, waist, thigh and shin length, overall length of arms compared to the same with humans.

 

If a skeptic were to compare those things, a skeptic would find that there is a serious problem with the theory that Patty is a 'bloke in a suit'. Bill Munns and others have covered this problem at length. However, to see this issue, a skeptic has to cause his hand to move, and do the data collection that any science would require.

 

I don't see that happening here, ergo, therefore IMO there are no skeptics here, only believers. 

 

 

That's a good example. I would like to see someone that thinks Patty was a human in a suit explain how this human being had an IM index in the upper 80's when humans have an average IM index about 68-72. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

^^You can't see something that does not exist.  That is true.

 

 

Finally...we're making progress. :popcorn:

 

You're forgetting that you can fake something that does not exist and try and pass it off as genuine.  Also the person who hallucinates and sees something generated by the mind to them it is real.  Or to put it in simpler terms.  Yes Virginia you can put a person in a bigfoot costume film him and if you've done a clever job pass it of as something genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...