Jump to content

General consensus on what Bigfoot is


Grub-Girl

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Doug said:

Can you prove to me right now at this moment that sasquatch exists beyond a reasonable doubt without meeting in person?

Nope, no more than anyone else can or cant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thousands of reports by delusional people that some, who may or may not be reliable, say are reliable, castings of fake prints, thermal images of hoaxes, Native American legends speak of Mount Hood and Mt. St. Helens as people who turned into mountains, DNA and hair that comes back as contaminated, degraded, human and normal animals, a film of a man in a suit presented by people who are probably not reliable, that mainstream science claim are kooks. This is what the evidence speaks of to MOST of the world's humans. This is why you are a scientist. You make absolute claims on things you cannot prove or disprove with the evidence you have.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug said:

Thousands of reports by delusional people that some, who may or may not be reliable, say are reliable, castings of fake prints, thermal images of hoaxes, Native American legends speak of Mount Hood and Mt. St. Helens as people who turned into mountains, DNA and hair that comes back as contaminated, degraded, human and normal animals, a film of a man in a suit presented by people who are probably not reliable, that mainstream science claim are kooks. This is what the evidence speaks of to MOST of the world's humans. This is why you are a scientist. You make absolute claims on things you cannot prove or disprove with the evidence you have.

 

I am not a scientist, Science though is a Method, not a cabal, not a religion, not an ideology... it evolves as knowledge evolves thats kinda the point. Its never an absolute, it reevaluates new evidence and or data as it comes in. Those claiming its a cabal are on the leading edge of APPLIED IGNORANCE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doug said:

Thousands of reports by delusional people that some, who may or may not be reliable, say are reliable, castings of fake prints, thermal images of hoaxes, Native American legends speak of Mount Hood and Mt. St. Helens as people who turned into mountains, DNA and hair that comes back as contaminated, degraded, human and normal animals, a film of a man in a suit presented by people who are probably not reliable, that mainstream science claim are kooks. This is what the evidence speaks of to MOST of the world's humans. This is why you are a scientist. You make absolute claims on things you cannot prove or disprove with the evidence you have.

This is what the evidence speaks of to those who have preconceived biases and refuse to objectively examine the evidence for themselves. That is the fault of the individuals who arbitrarily dismiss the evidence. Not any inherent flaw in the evidence itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vinchyfoot, I'm sorry, I was responding to Wooly Booger, not you. I forgot to hit the quote button on Wooly Booger's post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wooly Booger said:

This is what the evidence speaks of to those who have preconceived biases and refuse to objectively examine the evidence for themselves. That is the fault of the individuals who arbitrarily dismiss the evidence. Not any inherent flaw in the evidence itself. 

 How far have you examined the evidence for the existence of aliens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doug said:

 How far have you examined the evidence for the existence of aliens?

What evidence? My point is, there is no evidence for the existence of aliens. Unlike Sasquatch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked for evidence at any length? Have you thoroughly researched the phenomena?

Edited by Doug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doug said:

Have you looked for evidence at any length? Have you thoroughly researched the phenomena?

What evidence do you have or are willing to cite for aliens as they are seen in popular culture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug said:

Have you looked for evidence at any length? Have you thoroughly researched the phenomena?

I have looked FOR evidence. Of which there is none to speak of. Unless you count a couple of hillbillies inhabiting West Virginia trailer parks claiming to be anal probed as “evidence.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no evidence. I believe it is possible they exist and I believe that it is possible they don't exist. The phenomena does not interest me at all. But, I am not willing to make absolutes on something because I don't find the evidence credible or lacking. If I did, then I would be just like the millions of people who claim that those who believe in sasquatch are hillbillies running around banging on trees and screaming, filming people in Chewbacca suits and sticks lying on the ground to advance their drug induced psychosis. 

 

The only reason I am willing to accept any evidence that some present on the existence of sasquatch, is because it is consistent with what I have encountered. If it isn't consistent with my experiences, then I file it away as interesting and possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Doug said:

I have no evidence. I believe it is possible they exist and I believe that it is possible they don't exist. The phenomena does not interest me at all. But, I am not willing to make absolutes on something because I don't find the evidence credible or lacking. If I did, then I would be just like the millions of people who claim that those who believe in sasquatch are hillbillies running around banging on trees and screaming, filming people in Chewbacca suits and sticks lying on the ground to advance their drug induced psychosis. 

 

The only reason I am willing to accept any evidence that some present on the existence of sasquatch, is because it is consistent with what I have encountered. If it isn't consistent with my experiences, then I file it away as interesting and possible.

Ok, thank you. Next

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest pet peeve on any forum is when a person who claims to be a scientist speaks in absolutes. It really erks me bad. I am sorry for the confrontation. You caught me in a bad mood.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

No Science is a method that evolves........

 

Since when has the scientific method been expected to "evolve"? When it met your opinions?

 

Quote

.........And I said they were human offshoots, ie hominids.........

 

Please review the definition if "hominid":

 

Quote
  1. a primate of a family ( Hominidae ) that includes humans and their fossil ancestors and also (in recent systems) at least some of the great apes.

 

Thus, all species within the family of Hominidae are human, but hominids like Australopithecines are not. So Homo floresiensis was human, but Australopithecus afarensis


 

Quote

 

........You dont know for a fact nor can you prove they were identical to humans. Even if the DNA is 99.99999% the same theres still that difference........


 

 

That's true. What's more, even if I could I wouldn't.

 

Quote

........And once again the Earth isnt flat........

 

Correct. But your opinions are.

 

Quote

........You dont know what zana was either so maybe stop talking in alleged facts when all you have is opinion.

 

The evidence shows that Zana was a sub-Saharan human, so yes, scientifically, I know what Zana was, and I'll write about her as often as I please. And frankly, since the more I write about her seems to increasingly unhinge you,  think I'll step it up a bit. Are you ready for a ride?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Since when has the scientific method been expected to "evolve"? When it met your opinions?

 

 

Please review the definition if "hominid":

 

 

Thus, all species within the family of Hominidae are human, but hominids like Australopithecines are not. So Homo floresiensis was human, but Australopithecus afarensis


 

 

That's true. What's more, even if I could I wouldn't.

 

 

Correct. But your opinions are.

 

 

The evidence shows that Zana was a sub-Saharan human, so yes, scientifically, I know what Zana was, and I'll write about her as often as I please. And frankly, since the more I write about her seems to increasingly unhinge you,  think I'll step it up a bit. Are you ready for a ride?

 

You know squat, you are going by a very likely imperfect historical record, so please. Until you have a sequenced genome of all classes of humanish offshoots all you are doing in your assumptions rather than basing opinion as fact is embellishment.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...