Huntster Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 I don't follow your reasoning. Why would skeptics have to explain why we haven't found some dead prankster dressed up as a Sasquatch? because proponents have to explain why we haven't found a Sasquatch by now ? Yes. Or is everything always a one way street?
Guest RayG Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Either there are a whole bunch of them, or the many thousands of sighting reports are all mis-identifications or lies. Isn't that an either/or fallacy? RayG
Huntster Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Isn't that an either/or fallacy? Yeah. Just like the argument that either we find a sasquatch body or fossil, or they don't exist. It works both ways. Each and every time.
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) Surely hunters wouldn't shoot and kill a human they have mistaken for an animal, yet it happens every year. I have to ask, just how many hoaxers are out there traipsing around in the woods with a bigfoot suit on, and how did you confirm their numbers? RayG YouTube? This thread is confusing me. Edited September 25, 2010 by FuriousGeorge
Guest alex Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Isn't that an either/or fallacy? RayG I never said that Sasquatch exists because of the lack of dead hoaxers, you are the one that claims that we should have found a sasquatch by now, yet i ask you why haven't we found a dead hoaxer by now, with all of the trigger happy hunters in the forest, one goon should have been shot by now, right? And if you take out the hoaxing explanation, the misidentification hypothesis starts to lose credibility, since common sense tells us that there is little margin for error when dealing with a large primate within a short distance, nothing exists today that resembles it, unless you look into the fossil record
Guest TooRisky Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) OK OK settle down boys there is a simple explanation... Ya see when researchers see this sort of hoaxing, they tend to well make it difficult for the Hoaxer to leave the forest... So there is less hoaxers every year do to mortality... So there are no hoaxers in my neck of the woods cause they know they don't leave the woods, ya it is catching on.... But yes... We are getting off course here...Lets all go back to the original question.... Edited September 25, 2010 by TooRisky
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 So you are saying that there has been zero hoaxing? I'm still confused. Bigfoot suits are one the only things that can be proven to be true. Take a look at youtube. It it all real to you? When someone says "Look, I saw bigfoot and I have video to prove it" and then they show a guy in a gorilla suit chasing farm animals, this is real? (Please don't argue that point, it's just one random YouTube video I named out of thousands) I won't even get into the fake footprints. You're saying to remove hoaxing from the equation? And to be clear, I'm not saying that all reports are hoaxes. Alex, I know you're upset with skeptics. I see it in a majority of your posts but skeptics are not the reason we have yet to find a bf. Skeptics aren't holding the truth from being told. If what you are saying was remotely true, it would not be damning for skeptics. It would be wonderful.
Guest RayG Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Yeah. Just like the argument that either we find a sasquatch body or fossil, or they don't exist. It works both ways. Each and every time. You do know that presenting a second false dilemma in no way strengthens the first, right? I never said that Sasquatch exists because of the lack of dead hoaxers, you are the one that claims that we should have found a sasquatch by now, yet i ask you why haven't we found a dead hoaxer by now, with all of the trigger happy hunters in the forest, one goon should have been shot by now, right? And if you take out the hoaxing explanation, the misidentification hypothesis starts to lose credibility, since common sense tells us that there is little margin for error when dealing with a large primate within a short distance, nothing exists today that resembles it, unless you look into the fossil record Sorry alex, you're going to have to restructure that into something that resembles a valid argument so I know exactly what it is I'm trying to debate. RayG
Guest Kerchak Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 ^ ^ ^ I understood perfectly what his point is.
Guest Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 (edited) Well I've been assured here many times that looking like a bigfoot is probably the best way to ensure your safety in the woods because so few people are willing to shoot a real one. After all, no one has a permit. But here's another hint: when I wear my bigfoot costume and wander around in the woods, I usually do it in parks where hunting is illegal and I certainly don't do it during deer or turkey season - just in case. Of course, this tiny detail also has some bearing: a small number of hoaxers with bigfoot suits have been pranking people off and on for a few decades. That's not quite the same thing as a continent-wide population of real bigfoots that have shared this land with skilled hunters and chicken-coop protectors every single day since, you know, the Pleistocene. I'm not feeling damned. Sorry. eta: apostrophe typo! Edited September 25, 2010 by Saskeptic
southernyahoo Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Perhaps there aren't as many hoaxers running around in suits as you think? Do you have an estimate at least? RayG If you're a skeptic, then pretty much every clear sighting of BF crossing the road in front of a car would represent a guy in a suit. Thats alot of guys in suits. A sighting of a creature like Patty has very few alternatives.
Guest Dudlow Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 There is a simple explanation, Alex. We just bury the hoaxers where they fall! Actually, I do understand your point, Alex, and I think it is as valid a query as many that have been raised, given the number of reports over the years of hunters and other folks discharging their firearms in the direction of Squatchy; many claiming they couldn't have missed given the circumstances. I'm not sure how many actually went looking for a body after the fact, though, given claims they were usually terrified of the prospect of a possibly wounded BF waiting to grab them from the bushes. Dudlow
Guest Fox The Bigfoot Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 Keep dodging my question Fox Dodging? The only thing I'm dodging are the fallacies that litter your original "case." False dilemma and an informal straw man. I mean this in all seriousness and with respect: find your nearest college and enroll in a a critical thinking course. There are often traveling seminars.
Guest Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 If you're a skeptic, then pretty much every clear sighting of BF crossing the road in front of a car would represent a guy in a suit. Thats alot of guys in suits. A sighting of a creature like Patty has very few alternatives. No it wouldn't. It could also be a misidentified animal or just a hallucination. Please don't try to tell people what they believe.
Guest watch1 Posted September 25, 2010 Posted September 25, 2010 We have shot and killed animal's mistaken for bigfoot, but we have never shot and killed a real bigfoot or a hoaxer pretending to be bigfoot Don't you think that's sorta dangerous? Not making sure of what you are shooting is a no - no. The other questions are, was the hunting season in for Bigfoot and was it in for the animals you mistakenly shot? Mike (watch1)
Recommended Posts