Jump to content

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?


Recommended Posts

Guest OntarioSquatch

It can, but not for DNA unless it has hair like how the Skookum cast did. An anthropologist can still examine the cast and figure out various things about the animal that supposedly left the print.

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

It can, but not for DNA unless it has hair like how the Skookum cast did. An anthropologist can still examine the cast and figure out various things about the animal that supposedly left the print.

Yes, but the track itself is not biological evidence. it may have biological evidence left behind inside the track, but the track itself is not biological.

 

How can the film depict an animal that does not exist?

 

 

That's a good point, it can't and it doesn't.  How can the film depict a costume that cannot be replicated?  Again, it can't and it doesn't. There is the only one logical conclusion that can be derived from those two facts: she is real.

 

Again with the cannot be replicated. Because something has not been done yet, does not mean it cannot be done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Because something has not been done yet, does not mean it cannot be done. 

 

hmmm  Let's see, you basically just said that the PG film cannot depict a real animal because Bigfoot do not exist.  Now what you are saying implies that just because Bigfoot has not been proven (to Science), that does not mean that it can't be proven (to Science).  That's a double-standard, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Not at all. I've never once said that bigfoot cannot be proven. I have simply said it has not been as of yet, and there is very little evidence to think that is ever going to happen. Bigfoot could be proven quite easily if only someone could furnish some decent, verifiable evidence. The lack of such evidence is what leads me to conclude that bigfoot does not exist. This conclusion, of course, also influences my opinion on the PGF.

 

By all means, prove bigfoot exists. It should be simple enough if bigfoot exists to gather some biological evidence that would prove existence. 

 

I cannot prove that bigfoot does not exist, but you can prove that it does. Hint: it's going to take more than grainy video, ambiguous tracks and stories. The bar for bigfoot evidence needs to be raised much higher. Decades of picking away at putative, ambiguous evidence does not advance the case for bigfoot one inch.

 

 

 

Side note for comedic value: Am I the only here that finds it humorous that on a bigfoot forum the word bigfoot is marked as misspelled? 

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch
 

^Skookum was an elk lay so don't get your hopes up.

 

I didn't say it isn't :)

 

Not at all. I've never once said that bigfoot cannot be proven. 

 

In the past you've stated that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then how can it be proven?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is leaning towards an argument of semantics.  One can make the conclusion that BF does not exist and still be open to the reality that if it were proven to exist they are wrong.  To have an opinion on something but willing to admit they were wrong is hardly applying a double standard.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 

^Skookum was an elk lay so don't get your hopes up.

 

I didn't say it isn't :)

 

Not at all. I've never once said that bigfoot cannot be proven. 

 

In the past you've stated that Bigfoot doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then how can it be proven?

 

Yes, I have concluded, based on the available evidence, that bigfoot does not exist. Call this a provisional conclusion if you wish. All conclusions in science are open to adjustment providing sufficient evidence is provided. By all means, prove me wrong. This will be trickier for you since you believe that bigfoot is the result of alien experimentation. That one will be harder to provide convincing evidence to support.

 

This is not a difficult concept. 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That is leaning towards an argument of semantics.  One can make the conclusion that BF does not exist and still be open to the reality that if it were proven to exist they are wrong.  To have an opinion on something but willing to admit they were wrong is hardly applying a double standard.  

 

 

 

Hey, twist...if the skeptic's "conclusion" is just their opinion...(as you just stated).....then how about if the good skeptic presents it as their "opinion".....rather than as a "fact". 

 

Would that not make sense? 

 

 

dmaker wrote:

 

 

Call this a 'provisional conclusion' if you wish. 

 

 

Sure, let's call it that....a 'provisional conclusion'...a.k.a.....your  'two-penny opinion'.  :thumbsup:

 

Does that work, for you? 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

And your opinion is worth more than my two cents because....?

 

 

I don't feel the need to burden the dialogue with  an "imo" prefix to every comment. But, hey, I'm willing if you are, Sweaty. If not, then let's leave the semantic games on the playground, shall we?

 

 

Having a serious discussion here sometimes can feel like herding cats.

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is leaning towards an argument of semantics.  One can make the conclusion that BF does not exist and still be open to the reality that if it were proven to exist they are wrong.  To have an opinion on something but willing to admit they were wrong is hardly applying a double standard.  

 

 

 

Hey, twist...if the skeptic's "conclusion" is just their opinion...(as you just stated).....then how about if the good skeptic presents it as their "opinion".....rather than as a "fact". 

 

Would that not make sense? 

 

 

Really, do we have to act this dense?  If a skeptic has to start every post regarding their opinion on this matter "In my opinion" shouldn't a proponent do so as well since BF is NOT OFFICIALLY recognized as a species?  With an unknown ( such as BF ) we are all forming conclusions based on our opinion of the evidence available?  Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

It's a fact that bigfoot is not a proven species. Should I start every comment with "Since bigfoot is not a proven species..."? Sure, as long as proponents have to start every comment with " While bigfoot remains unproven...".   How much would that burden the dialogue? I think at this point our perspective positions are well known, as is the current unproven status of bigfoot.   If I say bigfoot does not exist, let's agree that I am not laying claim to omniscient knowledge, but merely expressing my opinion on the matter, or I am simply reflecting the fact that bigfoot is unproven? 

 

Really, people.

Edited by dmaker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

Yes, I have concluded, based on the available evidence, that bigfoot does not exist. Call this a provisional conclusion if you wish. All conclusions in science are open to adjustment providing sufficient evidence is provided. By all means, prove me wrong. This will be trickier for you since you believe that bigfoot is the result of alien experimentation. That one will be harder to provide convincing evidence to support.

 

This is not a difficult concept. 

 

That would make sense if you were claiming that Sasquatch most likely don't exist instead of that they absolutely don't. 

 

Another problem is that you're acting like your personal belief is some sort of mainstream consensus. By saying "by all means, prove me wrong", you're reversing the burden of proof. A proponent could just as easily claim that Bigfoot does exist and tell you to prove them wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Really, do we have to act this dense?  If a skeptic has to start every post regarding their opinion on this matter "In my opinion" shouldn't a proponent do so as well since BF is NOT OFFICIALLY recognized as a species?  With an unknown ( such as BF ) we are all forming conclusions based on our opinion of the evidence available?  Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, is it not? 

 

 

 

A Bigfoot proponent doesn't need to qualify their statement about "knowing Bigfoot exists"...if they say that they have actually seen one.

 

For them...if what they say is true....there is proof of their existence.

 

 

For the skeptics....a comparable situation does not exist. All you have is your opinion....possibly supported by evidence, but not proven so.

 

Sorry. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...