Yuchi1 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I wasn't given a choice in admission to the Bigfoot camp. You might say I was formally introduced. Your 'obvious conclusion' that they're not out there is neither obvious, nor conclusive to me. And if you're so fed up with "bigfooters . . so willing to buy into nonsense then we'd all be on to more important natural science," then why are you not onto other, more important natural science instead of here? Since it's nonsense? Mind me, I don't mind, but I think thou protests too much. Especially over something you've concluded doesn't exist. If that were really true, you'd lock it up and move onto other things as you've already concluded this subject is not worth another moment's further consideration. I don't understand. Plussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Ditto. It would appear that Crow cannot move on to "more important natural science" until he has convinced all bigfoot proponents and witnesses that bigfoot does not exist. This seems to directly reveal his underlying motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Since the question is asked for skeptics to show and tell here's a bit of show and tell. Nowhere on the object you see in the photo has any credible scientifically accepted evidence ever been produced for bigfoot or for any of the other similar like creatures reported anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) Except in the fossil record...... So its not a question of existence but time frame. Are there any Ape men who are still extant? As of right now we have no proof that they are, but we do have proof that they existed. I think its a distinction that skeptics fail to recognize. And its not the same as a dinosaur, many of these Ape men were around until very recently. And its not like a Chupacabra that has no precendent in the fossil record. Edited March 23, 2016 by norseman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Since the question is asked for skeptics to show and tell here's a bit of show and tell. Nowhere on the object you see in the photo has any credible scientifically accepted evidence ever been produced for bigfoot or for any of the other similar like creatures reported anywhere. And this still holds your interest, when there are other more important natural sciences? I don't see anywhere on that object any credible, accepted scientific evidence or scientific proof that Obama won the election in 2008. There's no scientific method to test that fact. No possibility of scientific proof. Oh, you may can do an investigation to indicate he truly did win that election, but the method for proving historic truths is much different from proving scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable. Science can't prove some things in a timely manner, but we have other, more intellectual methods of determining a truth. One cannot prove intuition, but it's widely known to be an important element of the human experience. You can't tell me you have never successfully relied on your intuition. But you can't prove scientifically that intuition does or doesn't exist. Science is pregnant with theories. They are widely accepted as truths, but technically, they can't be proven and yet are widely accepted as scientific truths. They're taught. They're presented as truth. Truth is, they rely on multiples of faith. So much for scientific "truth." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 ^Far Archer..word salad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Really disappointed. Expected a scientific refutation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Since the question is asked for skeptics to show and tell here's a bit of show and tell. Nowhere on the object you see in the photo has any credible scientifically accepted evidence ever been produced for bigfoot or for any of the other similar like creatures reported anywhere. Crow, you know that's not true. The PGF is evidence. Skeptics have had 49 years to prove it false and it still stands. Nobody has provided a suit, nobody has replicated it to prove that it could be done as a hoax. You may BELIEVE that it is a fake, and you are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts, no matter how often you proclaim evidence to have no value without proof to that effect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Since the question is asked for skeptics to show and tell here's a bit of show and tell. Nowhere on the object you see in the photo has any credible scientifically accepted evidence ever been produced for bigfoot or for any of the other similar like creatures reported anywhere. Crow, you know that's not true. The PGF is evidence. Skeptics have had 49 years to prove it false and it still stands. Nobody has provided a suit, nobody has replicated it to prove that it could be done as a hoax. You may BELIEVE that it is a fake, and you are entitled to your beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts, no matter how often you proclaim evidence to have no value without proof to that effect. The PGF does not exist as universally accepted evidence. It comes with a lot of negative baggage and question marks. It is however the bigfoot gold standard which by it's nature is a standard riddled with negative baggage and question marks. When out side of the bigfoot campfire glow evidence becomes a bit more stringent. Type specimen is where the bar rests. I stand behind my statement. We have no indisputable evidence and absolutely no proof that bigfoot or it's cryptoid companions exist. It'll be just the same tomorrow too. Edited March 24, 2016 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Come on Crow. No weaker sauce exists in man's history than "it ain't so cuzza cuzza cuzza me." "Nowhere on the object you see in the photo has any credible scientifically accepted evidence ever been produced for bigfoot ... At the beginning of last calendar year, the same could have been said about tens of thousands of things science accepts this calendar year. But you knew that, right? Edited March 24, 2016 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Crow, more often than not there is no Universally Accepted Scientific position. There are still people that think the world is flat. Your beliefs cannot alter facts. Your refusal to accept facts does not alter facts. Most of the time your strategy seems to be to try to win debates by yelling louder than others and attempting to suppress other opinions. You're not going to convince all of us that the evidence doesn't exist so that we can all move on to "more important natural science". You, however, have the option to move on whenever you choose with our blessing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 ^ ^^Weak sauce? How weak will the sauce be when the NAWAC tracking collar story becomes the newest act in the circus? JDL it is totally unreasonable to expect members of a recreational/diversion to daily life construct to put away their toys and come in for dinner so to speak. Bigfootter's blessing? Perhaps use the blessing aspect for Matt Johnson and his new bigfoot religion. Yes bigfootism is a very solid institution it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I don't view it as an institution. Or as a religion. Or as a Fortean subject. This is simply the pursuit of knowledge regarding an undocumented species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Someday I may understand the practical value of erecting titanium information-proof umbrellas above one's head. That day, however, will not in all probability be today. In re JDL's signature: I haven't encountered a bigfoot (although two things I have found no other explanation for, well, that I have), and, to me, the belief debate is moot. I mean, I do come on here to try to stimulate both the curious and the incurious, but to me, the debate is settled. It is settled in the way science settles such things. The evidence points, overwhelmingly, to existence. Scientists can collect the specimen any time they're ready; but to those of us paying attention and doing the work - the only ones who ever know what's going on at the frontiers of science - the essential work is done, and the specimen is just buffing the polish. Just as millions are unaware that Pluto doesn't count as One Of The Nine Planets anymore (and just as some of us recognize that is silly in the extreme, and isn't Pluto giving those silly scientists - A VOTE, can you believe that? - quite the rebuke right now), millions are unaware of the depth and consistency of the evidence for sasquatch. Ignorance doesn't make knowledge disappear. Just sayin'. And it doesn't matter who is ignorant, and who isn't. Just because I know sasquatch is real, using the processes of science, and virtually no scientists agree (that they will admit), doesn't make me wrong and them right. Particularly when they speak...and provide conclusive proof that they are wrong, and I am right. Will say this, Crow; your perpetual delusion that your opinion counts against cold fact is, when viewed from certain angles, most impressive indeed. In a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 I always enjoy your posts. You may be completely wrong and I of course am sure you are,but at least you are entertaining with your own personal delusions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts