Jump to content
xspider1

Why Are The Pgf Detractors So Persistent?

Recommended Posts

clubbedfoot

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

 

 

Omniscient much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^^

 

This has already been covered. But thanks for playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

If Kit does not prove his claim, then at some point it becomes reasonable to assume that he cannot prove his claim, therefore his claim is most likely false. But guess what? The same logic applies to the existence of bigfoot. 

 

There's just one problem with the infallible logic there: kitakaze is all alone with his claim, whereas thousands of people have reported seeing Bigfoot, big difference.
 

dmaker, on 16 Mar 2016 - 7:48 PM, said:

"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?" 

 

The bff is not marking anything as misspelled, dmaker, it's your browser : B.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"There's just one problem with the infallible logic there: kitakaze is all alone with his claim, whereas thousands of people have reported seeing Bigfoot, big difference."

 

Anecdotes are useless as evidence. But, thanks for playing. Like I said, herding cats..

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

We weren't talking about anecdotes.  We were talking about whether or not kitakaze's claim is the same as the thousands of claims that Bigfoot exist which, it is not.  Kitakaze's claim has zero evidence to back it up, whereas there is a lot of evidence to backup the thousands of claims of Bigfoot existing.  Whether you choose to accept that evidence does not make that evidence go away.  And, Thank-you for playing as well!

 

post-131-0-34975000-1458227747.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

You were talking about anecdotes. You said:

 

" thousands of people have reported seeing Bigfoot"   How is that not a reference to anecdotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The difference is that the thousands of reports of Bigfoot have evidence to back them up in the form of images (whether one likes them or not), footprints (whether one likes them or not), corroborating reports from other witnesses (whether one likes them or not), etc. etc.  Can you not see the difference between that and kitakaze's alleged skype call for which there is absolutely no one corroborating and no evidence what-so-ever?  If not then please try looking at this without wearing the hoax colored glasses.  thx

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Evidence that could just as easily be explained by hoaxing or error is not something to brag about.

 

 

I put zero stock in Kit's claim. There is nothing to substantiate it at the moment. If that changes, great. If not, then it's just another story. 

 

How can you say that Kit's claim has no evidence? It has the same amount of evidence as the vast majority of bigfoot reports. His story.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

 

I put zero stock in Kit's claim. There is nothing to substantiate it at the moment. If that changes, great. If not, then it's just another story. 

 

How can you say that Kit's claim has no evidence? 

 

 

You just said that, yourself....Champ. :lol:

 

Re-read your post....and look for the colorful words.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

 

 

 

 

 

^^^Once again the sightings are brought up.  Thousands of sightings yada yada yada.  By that logic every body eat dung 10 trillion fly's can be wrong

Edited by Crowlogic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

 

 

I put zero stock in Kit's claim. There is nothing to substantiate it at the moment. If that changes, great. If not, then it's just another story. 

 

How can you say that Kit's claim has no evidence? 

 

 

You just said that, yourself....Champ. :lol:

 

Re-read your post....and look for the colorful words.

 

Sweaty, obviously I understand that Kit's claim has no evidence. I was applying xspiders own logic to Kit's claim.  That should really have been very obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

^Without knowing the details of your sighting nobody can say exactly what and why you saw it.  But time of day, your own medical/mental state, location, time of year, why you where where you were, how long the sighting was and how far were you from it and what pre sighting bigfoot interest and influences you may have had.

 

The details of my sighting are at this link. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/29115-colorado-sighting-of-two-bf-in-the-road/

 

The thread covers most of the variables you list. I had zero interest in BF prior to the encounter.

 

A footprint is not biological evidence. It cannot be taken to a lab and tested.

 

That's not really true.

 

As any tracker knows, prints contain quite a lot of information about the creature that made it: what sex it is, if it has eaten recently, what way its looking at the time the track was made, where the next track will be, how fast it was going, stuff like that. I did share a track on this site a few years ago, one that was part of a trackway of about 15 prints. Most were in forest debris and hard enough to see without tracking experience (such tracks are called 'compressions'), let alone that it was near dusk on a cloudy day when I found the trackway. The one track that could be photographed showed that (if interpreted as a human track) the creature that made the track was female. And had never ever worn shoes. And was in a bog. On private land, with no trails. And was exercising extreme stealth.  Most of this is biological information. Quite literally, one could carefully dig a track out of the ground and bring it into a lab...

 

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? 

 

That's your spellchecker, not the forum. Right-click the word and click 'add to dictionary'.

 

Otherwise, I think your response here is entirely reasonable. Even though I've seen two of them really really close up and in good lighting, I also suspect that they are quite smart and if they want, easily avoid humans (most of the time anyway, but well enough for government work as they say). Humans always announce their presence to all the denizens of the wild whenever they enter it. Its this reason that I think we won't ever bag one and other than grainy or otherwise pixelated videos, we are extremely unlikely to see anything better. Which really plays into the idea that its all a hoax, which is why I think your viewpoint is so reasonable. Actually, I'm jealous! My problem is I know they exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

dmaker wrote:

 

 

Sweaty, obviously I understand that Kit's claim has no evidence. I was applying xspiders own logic to Kit's claim.  That should really have been very obvious.

 

 

Sorry about that, dmaker....I misunderstood what you wrote.

 

But the reason why I didn't get what you were saying, was because applying xspider's reasoning...(sighting reports of Bigfoot have evidence to back them up...)....to kit's claim wouldn't give xspider any reason to put any weight in kit's claim. There is no supporting evidence, of any type, relating to his claim. 

 

Therefore...what you wrote doesn't make any sense. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

A track may contain information about what made the track and it can even contain biological evidence left behind. Heck, they can get DNA out of polar bear tracks now. But the track itself is not biological evidence. This really should not be that difficult to understand.

 

 

Thank-you for the spell checker tip. I always assumed it was the forum software. 

 

 


dmaker wrote:

 

 

Sweaty, obviously I understand that Kit's claim has no evidence. I was applying xspiders own logic to Kit's claim.  That should really have been very obvious.

 

 

Sorry about that, dmaker....I misunderstood what you wrote.

 

But the reason why I didn't get what you were saying, was because applying xspider's reasoning...(sighting reports of Bigfoot have evidence to back them up...)....to kit's claim wouldn't give xspider any reason to put any weight in kit's claim. There is no supporting evidence, of any type, relating to kit's claim. 

 

 

Therefore...what you wrote doesn't make any sense. :)

It makes perfect sense, Sweaty. Xspider appeals to the thousands of bigfoot reports. Thousands he said. There are not thousands of bigfoot reports with photos or trackways offered as supporting evidence. The vast majority of bigfoot reports have nothing to back them up. Just like Kit's claim.

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

xspider's reasoning includes the various types of evidence which support the sighting reports. 

 

In kitakaze's case....there is no supporting evidence, of any type. 

 

Therefore, the meaning of your previous post was rather easy to miss....because it didn't make any sense. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...