Jump to content
ShadowBorn

Has this been asked about the PGF before

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Go to the 32:50 mark of this video....and you can hear the echolocating sounds made by a cryptid animal...."Champ"...

 

 

 

No bullets required. ;) 

 

If it's video you'd prefer, Norse....then this detail can do the job....(the film subject's inhuman 'arm proportion')...

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Matt-AG1.gif

 

 

I don't have time right now, to explain why the proportion of the arm is out of 'human range'...but, it is.  :) 

 

 

No. No, the bullets are still required mr. smiley face.....or in champs case nets. Champ unfortunately isn’t a real animal yet. Neither is a Sasquatch.....

 

Is this mic on? *tap* *tap*

 

Your proving my point for me. Those examples ARE still cryptids.

1 hour ago, Faenor said:

The only scientific fact is that the pgf is a hoax.  If you took the time to read the works of your betters who work in science you'd realize your faith in bigfoots and boogety men was in error.

 

 

Which “works” would those be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

No. No, the bullets are still required mr. smiley face.....or in champs case nets. Champ unfortunately isn’t a real animal yet. 

 

LOL.....you can hear the creature echolocating...but because Mr. Official Scientist hasn't 'signed off' on it....it "doesn't exist"??

 

My point has always been, and will continue to be...that scientific analysis can produce definitive determinations....(through either audio, or visual evidence).  No bullets, or Official Lazy-brained Scientists required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

You have a skewed definition of definitive.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

LOL.....you can hear the creature echolocating...but because Mr. Official Scientist hasn't 'signed off' on it....it "doesn't exist"??

 

My point has always been, and will continue to be...that scientific analysis can produce definitive determinations....(through either audio, or visual evidence).  No bullets, or Official Lazy-brained Scientists required.

 

CORRECT!

 

How many chromosomes does Champ have? Does it have lungs or gills? What does it eat? What genus does it belong too? 

 

If no one can provide physical evidence of a unknown creature in the lake? Science will begin looking for alternative explanations for a recording that seems to be a one off event. Maybe someone was playing Flipper down at the other end of the lake. Maybe it was a new propeller that is responsible for the noise?

 

You really do not understand how science works or what the definition of proof means. You CANNOT prove a new species exists based on some audio recordings. You can be compelled enough to go look and try to locate the animal and get a dna sample or capture it or kill it as a type specimen. 

 

You can call science lazy brains all you want too. It changes nothing. But I’m glad this is the system we have in place. We have people on this forum that would be telepathically naming “new” species on a daily basis if physical proof wasn’t required. We must draw the line somewhere.

 

Definitive determinations isn’t a thing..... sorry.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
8 hours ago, Faenor said:

The only scientific fact is that the pgf is a hoax.  If you took the time to read the works of your betters who work in science you'd realize your faith in bigfoots and boogety men was in error.

 

 

And as long as you continue to ignore what YOUR betters here have discovered through hard study you'll just keep wasting your time regurgitating lazy-brained drivel. 

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redbone
SSR Team
8 hours ago, Huntster said:

My suggestion, Mr. Man of Science, is to take your time, hightail it back over to ISF, and get some counseling and guidance before responding. You're going to need all the help you can get from your "betters". I intend to make a snack out of you.

The M.O. of this person is to post something that stirs ups the hornets and then disappear for a month or more. Don't hold your breath waiting for the next reply. I have gone full ignore on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Huntster knows this, he does a wee bit of trolling himself.  I suspect Huntster bit on the bait out of boredom! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

LOL........this fish might have soft lips that can't hold a hook, but he's marked now. I never ignore. I'll wait for him to pop his head up again, and we'll eventually see if he swims in that School of Ill Repute known as ISF.............

 

*...........Rebaiting the hook..........*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, Twist said:

You have a skewed definition of definitive.   

 

So, I accept your premise that Sweaty's definition is "skewed", but as you can see, I've posted a definition scientifically. It is decisive, and it is with authorityno? Google says that's what "definitive" means. Do you differ? After all, who are you? "Twist" vrs "Google"?

 

What a world, huh? One in which "authority" is by moniker. Is this how you like it?

 

So, if you accept the above definition, I must now ask, who is the "authority" whom you will accept who will declare sasquatches as existing? Got a name? Got a title? If not, why not? What gives him this "authority"?  

 

Quote

de·fin·i·tive

/dəˈfinədiv/
adjective
  1. 1. 
    (of a conclusion or agreement) done or reached decisively and with authority.
    "a definitive diagnosis"
    synonyms: conclusivefinalultimateMore
     

     

     

Edited by Huntster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Huntster, do you agree with Sweatys opinion that the “scientific analysis” of the echolocating supposedly done by Nessie definitively proves Nessie?

 

To clarify, the echo locating was done by Nessie, not the scientific analysis!  🤣

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor
7 hours ago, norseman said:

Does it have lungs or gills?

 

Some theories involve 'trapped' whales. Whales have blow holes. I do not follow the adventures of Champie yet but I do not believe that there are reports of a lake animal 'blowing' on the surface.

Another aspect of respiration to consider is 'breathing' through its skin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
53 minutes ago, Twist said:

Huntster, do you agree with Sweatys opinion that the “scientific analysis” of the echolocating supposedly done by Nessie definitively proves Nessie?..........

 

I don't know enough about the event to present an opinion. I guess you might say that the situation "doesn't exist to me". 

 

But if you present the authority who is supposed to rule on it, I would love to read his/her/their ruling. Can you link that ruling or define that authority?

Is the BLM an "authority", Twist? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
9 hours ago, Huntster said:

So, I accept your premise that Sweaty's definition is "skewed", but as you can see, I've posted a definition scientifically. It is decisive, and it is with authorityno? Google says that's what "definitive" means. Do you differ? After all, who are you? "Twist" vrs "Google"?

 

What a world, huh? One in which "authority" is by moniker. Is this how you like it?

 

 

The term "definitive" (aka decisive) is brought up by Sweaty, as far as what authority is deemed as "the" "authority" that is up to Sweaty to define.   

 

My term I brought up and could be debated is "skewed"  as you acknowledged by the "quotation marks" and your own statement,  

"So, I accept your premise that Sweaty's definition is "skewed", I stand by my idea that his idea of "definitive" is skewed.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
13 hours ago, norseman said:

 

CORRECT!

 

How many chromosomes does Champ have? Does it have lungs or gills? What does it eat?

 

 

Champ has gills like a big fish and eats whatever really big fish eat because it’s prob just a big fish of some kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^^ Up 3.

Hunster, I say sturgeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×