Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 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. 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. If that's not the pot calling the kettle black!!!!! Wow you got some kahonas in my book HG!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Huh nice catch Jerry! Can't wait to hear the answer...... I asked General this very question. I don't think he would mind if I shared his answer but I'll hold off. He can reply if he wants. I will say I didn't have any problem with his answer. I've only detected a few inconsistencies in everything I've read from the various participants in this story and this is one of them. The other is the comment on who sent the sample to Ketchum and General addressed that not long ago. It's nice to be back on topic. Edited October 22, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) That would be a pretty big one in my book.... Couple of days later with dogs compared to 2 weeks later digging in the snow?? Edited October 22, 2011 by Cervelo 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." This is a fallacy. One could just as easily claim that a black kettle were orbiting Uranus and that it contains gold. It would be nonsensical to expect others not to doubt on the grounds that they cannot prove you wrong. Edited October 22, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 That would be a pretty big one in my book.... Couple of days later with dogs compared to 2 weeks later digging in the snow?? I hope you're not implying one version has a dog and snow and the other doesn't? I don't think that's the case at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 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." This is a fallacy. One could just as easily claim that a black kettle were orbiting Uranus and that it contains gold. It would be nonsensical to expect others not to doubt on the grounds that they cannot prove you wrong. I think your comparison of the black Kettle orbiting Uranau full of gold is not valid. We know that very different humanoid beings existed in the past, we also know that atleast one type has survived to this day. From these facts, it shouldn't be considered extraordinary at all that another could do the same. The argument that they've gone undetected doesn't wash either, They've been seen and reported for hundreds of years. The thing that is lacking is full recognition through irrefutable documentation and a better understanding why that is. It could be that we can't tell their bones from ours very well, or that we tend to recognize that they just don't belong in zoos or living within our society. If you couple that with the prospect that they don't want to be scientically observed or studied, then it would go a long ways towards explaining the sparsity of recognised evidence or proof. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I hope you're not implying one version has a dog and snow and the other doesn't? I don't think that's the case at all. Oh goody someone with inside knowledge that won't share wants to play games!! Ya got the wrong fish, just spit the hook!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I think your comparison of the black Kettle orbiting Uranau full of gold is not valid. We know that very different humanoid beings existed in the past, we also know that atleast one type has survived to this day. From these facts, it shouldn't be considered extraordinary at all that another could do the same. The argument that they've gone undetected doesn't wash either, They've been seen and reported for hundreds of years. The thing that is lacking is full recognition through irrefutable documentation and a better understanding why that is. It could be that we can't tell their bones from ours very well, or that we tend to recognize that they just don't belong in zoos or living within our society. If you couple that with the prospect that they don't want to be scientically observed or studied, then it would go a long ways towards explaining the sparsity of recognised evidence or proof. I absolutely agree with you on a couple of points and completely disagree on some others. It absolutely should and would be extraordinary if bigfoot were discovered to be a real live animal. Also, its extraordinary how many reports are made with nothing to come of it. It is comparable in that there is no tangible (as in scientifically verifiable/absolute proof) evidence that my kettle full of gold that orbits Uranus exists. (man that is just fun to say! haha) It can also be said there is no absolute proof my kettle full of gold that orbits Uranus doesn't exist. The same can be said for bigfoot. There are other providential things worth mentioning too. There have been many things "seen" or experienced by humans other than bigfoot with more frequency and more multiple witness accounts with video/photo evidence to back it up. Does this mean it (insert subject of choice that fits that criteria here) absolutely exist? Another point: Which animal has ever wanted to be studied and observed in the wild? Also, Isn't bigfoot observed near and around humans and their dwellings? Is it special pleading to argue that they don't want to be observed, and say in the same breath they are or have been present recent enough to leave hair in states like Oklahoma how far away from the nearest dwelling or human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm still firmly rooted in the camp that says nothing will come out of the Sierra Shooting. From the start it's muddled up in the typical bigfoot cloak and dagger and internal conflicts. In all seriousness I say if there was a real shooting with real tissue samples being analyzed by real labs we'd have had the results months ago. Claiming that that a paper needs to be written or submitted and or published is nonsense. The scientific act of acquiring the samples and testing results are in and of themselves sufficient to put the scientists on the map. Any further in depth analysis by same scientists would be just as valid and welcome in the scientific community and certainly by the bigfoot community and public at large. If it is argued that the scientists involved want to have everything known that's knowable from the samples before going public it's a ruse IMO. Knowing 100% of anything is an impossibility. But it does make for entertainment and I suppose it gives the "creators" of the story a certain satisfaction that they are occupying people's time and attention. However as for this thing having a real scientific payoff I think the odds are slim and none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm still firmly rooted in the camp that says nothing will come out of the Sierra Shooting. From the start it's muddled up in the typical bigfoot cloak and dagger and internal conflicts. In all seriousness I say if there was a real shooting with real tissue samples being analyzed by real labs we'd have had the results months ago. Claiming that that a paper needs to be written or submitted and or published is nonsense. The scientific act of acquiring the samples and testing results are in and of themselves sufficient to put the scientists on the map. Any further in depth analysis by same scientists would be just as valid and welcome in the scientific community and certainly by the bigfoot community and public at large. If it is argued that the scientists involved want to have everything known that's knowable from the samples before going public it's a ruse IMO. Knowing 100% of anything is an impossibility. But it does make for entertainment and I suppose it gives the "creators" of the story a certain satisfaction that they are occupying people's time and attention. However as for this thing having a real scientific payoff I think the odds are slim and none. I agree with you 100%. I am also in the nothing will come of this camp. It is my guess that the paper were all awaiting has been rejected by 2 or 3 journals and they are still shopping it around to reputable journals. We will probaly see it released on a fringe journal, or availble with a purchase of a documentary. I have no inside information. This is just my hunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Even if its Bigfoot DNA they are swimming upstream. No mainstream publication is going to put their reputation on the line due to the subject matter. It's unfourtunate and I hope I'm wrong. We shall see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 If that's not the pot calling the kettle black!!!!! Wow you got some kahonas in my book HG!!! If you have something personal to say to me, by all means PM me and we can discuss it. Otherwise, I would advise you to leave it at what you wrote unless you can back it up since you will just end up looking foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 127 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) 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. Agreed. 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. Nope. They have to prove they can. (if they wish to be taken seriously) Edited October 22, 2011 by 127 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 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. Good gawd, man, whatever happened to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" And I hope I'm allowed to post here upon the HairyGreek forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Good gawd, man, whatever happened to "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" And I hope I'm allowed to post here upon the HairyGreek forums. I do not argue with the question, I argue with the way it is asked sometimes. But, I prefer rude out-and-out questions and arguments over the ambiguous one-liners if that is what you are asking Inc. As far as they forums crack, there is a report button and an ignore button. Feel free to use either if I offend. Edited October 22, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts