Bonehead74 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Breathe HG, breathe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Guess the only real creature / monster out there is ~ Godzilla Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) i have just read on here a few times the statement (and I'm paraphrasing here) "prove that he doesn't exist" or "prove that it's a suit". But It's really not up to the naysayers to prove a negative unfortunately. The burden of proof lies in the hands of the claimant. Incredible claims require incredible evidence to be accepted... It's the way the Bigfoot thing is going to work. (especially now that claims of a big bipedal hominid living in the woods have become synonymous with aliens, chupacabras and the mothman). I do agree that neither side of the argument should just make grandiose statements and not at least have an argument to back it up. (not to mention some of the semantical nitpicking that goes on... how does that make things any better?) But, the burden of proof still lies on the believer to show evidence for the big guy... I myself reserve judgement until i either A)see one for myself or B ) am convinced by the preponderance of the evidence. We often hear an argument like this from bigfoot proponents on all types of issues. "You can't prove it doesn't exist, you can't prove it didn't happen." Edited October 22, 2011 by Art1972 remove link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Hmmmmmmmmmmm................interesting read. I thought it was a metal teapot (facepalm). I'm still not sure where the burden of proof belongs for the Bob H. in a suit theory though. It is a negative of the Patty is a sho nuff squatch theory. Do the subscribers of the PSNS (Patty is a sho nuff squatch) theory have to prove the suit doesn't exist? Wouldn't that be akin to the disbelievers in the PSNS theory proving Patty doesn't/didn't exist? I'm so confused............I think I'll just go out in the forest and look around, it is much less confusing,and the chances of me encountering an intellectual are virtually nill, thank teapot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Your turn. What kind of test did DNA Diagnostics offer for species ID? Are they going to sequence the entire mtDNA , just the SGM test, or what? There is a question unanswered 127. I hear nothing but crickets.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) We often hear an argument like this from bigfoot proponents on all types of issues. "You can't prove it doesn't exist, you can't prove it didn't happen." Any declarative statement of fact that is not self-evident, whether positive or negative, requires proof. Russell was a brilliant man but he sometimes over-simplified his arguments to score a point against theists. Unless an individual has had an unmistakable firsthand sighting, all one can state unequivocally is that they believe (or not) that BF exists. I remain an agnostic, skeptical proponent. Edited October 22, 2011 by Art1972 remove quoted link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 ... If you are here to prove something to others or science, then have at it. Not everyone should have to IMO. I am not saying no one should face any scrutiny, but there are ways of doing that which allow the person being questioned to keep their dignity that some on here have little regard for. That's just how I see it and what I was addressing. It is my impression that "skeptics" tend to not challenge members' personal experiences, reports, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 ... If you are here to prove something to others or science, then have at it. Not everyone should have to IMO. I am not saying no one should face any scrutiny, but there are ways of doing that which allow the person being questioned to keep their dignity that some on here have little regard for. That's just how I see it and what I was addressing. It is my impression that "skeptics" tend to not challenge members' personal experiences, reports, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) It is my impression that "skeptics" tend to not challenge members' personal experiences, reports, etc. Parn, you and Saskeptic are very good about this from what I have seen. I see a smile behind a lot of things that you write that I think others think you are being antagonistic. But that tends to be exception and not the rule. Honestly, it's how the physical BF believers treat the paranormal ones that I think can be really cruel considering neither can prove a darn thing so far. Heck, even if they can prove a physical BF, you still then have prove they can't do all the outlandish things some folks say they can. JMO though. Edited October 22, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 These questions are for Mr. Randles. The "General" has made several posts here. Have any of his statements surprised you? Has he been entirely consistent here with the conversations he has had with you? I ask because of the following. In your statement on the Sierra Shooting at the OP website you write that you were in touch with General ("hunter 1") two weeks after the alleged event. After extensive conversations with him (and the driver, "hunter 2"), you "then urged hunter 1 to return to the site and look around for any evidence from the incident. Upon returning they were greeted with roughly two feet of snow. The little one was not found. They concentrated their efforts in the area where they thought they heard the larger one go down. After digging through the snow for many hours they able to find a piece of flesh, greasy fat and hair, but no body. The flesh and hair matched the color of the larger one exactly. White gray hair with some black in it." In his August 6 post here (page 3), when asked who found the tissue sample, General replied "My bloodhound found the flesh sample several days after the shooting." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Holy...! Back on topic! Sweet... Thanks JerryWayne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Huh nice catch Jerry! Can't wait to hear the answer...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 There is a question unanswered 127. I hear nothing but crickets.... I'm not sending them anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted October 22, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted October 22, 2011 Parn, you and Saskeptic are very good about this from what I have seen. I see a smile behind a lot of things that you write that I think others think you are being antagonistic. Only a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts