Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 No, don't take the bet. unless you want to loose. if history has shown us one thing to be true, you can't count on any conclusive evidence. That's the thing, it doesn't have to be "conclusive" (body), it only has to be "convincing", and we have agreed that if it is what I described then I win. I would NOT consider taking this bet if the animal had to be classified and categorized by science in order for me to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Take the bet. However, you should be concerned by who gets to decide. Do you have to convince each individual or just some? Perhaps an independent party should be the judge? Finally, everybody needs to put up the money so it can be held by somebody you all trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 How about some nice Russian Roulette, instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Will you be able to handle the "tick tock" comments in the break room for perhaps a year? I would tend to agree with Slicktrick that possible litigation surrounding the back story could postpone the big reveal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 8, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 8, 2011 I don't need a body in order to collect, just for the Erickson footage plus the DNA evidence to be convincing. Should I take it? NO, don't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Should I take it? Raise your end to $150 each (against $1500 from each of them) and get them to go with 18 months. The cat's out of the bag. The Erickson Project's plan of releasing the film concurrently with the publication of a peer-reviewed article is OBE - overcome by events. The sound academic argument of building the tightest case possible before releasing anything will no longer work. Mainstream science will attack each bit of leaked information without the supporting foundation of the full body of evidence and devalue it. When the peer-reviewed article is finally published, they'll be placed in a position of trying to prove that the portion of their evidence that was previously leaked and "refuted" was actually real - just as real as the PGF. Now they have to do what makes the best business sense. A peer-reviewed publication raises the value of their intellectual property, but every leak in the interim diminishes it. If they wait too long, too many of the details will bleed out and there will be no thundrous, climactic event. If any of the film unofficially leaks, their stock drops dramatically. To establish ownership and value, they'll have to publicly release at least some of the best film (reveal enough to establish value), along with an announcement that DNA results are forthcoming (state that they have more value to offer). This approach makes sound business sense, builds anticipation, will actually raise the market value of the withheld information, and buys time. There are two big issues here that can be decoupled. The first is proof that they exist - a good segment of film and just enough info to establish that the forthcoming DNA analysis documents a new species. The second issue is "what they are" - the peer-reviewed article. This way they start making money immediately and their NDAs will hold up better as the people who have signed them see progress and realize that the Project has enough capital to pursue legal action. If Erickson himself has already leaked to Silver Fox, then they're already in a damage control mode and have been shaken out of their original plan. It won't take them long to make lemonade out of the lemons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Well it's $100 each so it would be $1,000 one year from the date we make the bet, but yeah I can make with the cash if I must. You never gamble that which you cannot afford to lose! I'm not sure I'd bet on the Erickson Project results being public in a year. I've only been expecting confirmation of the species since 1967................The only gambling I do is paying in advance for work that never seems to get done. This time I'm financing a trip to an out-of-state VA so the guy won't die before he can fix my muffler system for cheaper than a shop. The bet might get the guys at work interested in the phenomenon and stimulate a lot of conversation around the water cooler and, win or lose, maybe that's a good thing. Compare to the cost of, say, renting DVDs every night or upgrading the cell phone service or a trip to Rome. It's your money and your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 TAKE THE BET ITS A CINCH WINNER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 How about some nice Russian Roulette, instead? That was my thought IO. Everyone knows to pay off a bet you have to know who won, fair and square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Jon, IMO if you're betting the creatures are real, personally, I'd bet everything I own and my life against a doughnut that the creatures exist. The problem is proving it. Even if you've seen them, you can't expect anyone to take your word that they exist. And to be fair, you really can't hold that against anyone. It'll be a proven fact someday. I hope DNA will do it but, without other evidence it may still be rejected. I think the old school skeptics will absolutely have to see a body and maybe even touch it before they'll know for sure the creatures do exist. There are some that may be satisfied with DNA but, IMO there's still gonna be those that say things like: "Where is the type specimen?" "Could this DNA have been engineered as a hoax on the scientific community? Chris B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Please do not take this bet. Nothing even close to "conclusive" will come from the DNA or EP. Thank me later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 How will you prove that bigfoot is real? The DNA project that has been talked about? Don't get your hopes up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Better make sure that the betting parties agree on the definition of proof. Look that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Take the bet ! Just don't plan on collecting , anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 See if you can find 10 folks here who will take the bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts