Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 If data could be evaluated in a mature, dispassionate way then I am convinced more would be presented for the group. The problem as I see it revolves around the issue of proof. Every bent branch turns into a debate about the existence of Bigfoot or the life history of the person who found it. I have two years worth of photos that I've shown to two other people. Whether they are "good evidence" I guess would depend on your expectations. Good evidence: go to images.google.com type in "mountain gorilla" Are your pictures on a par with those that appear in the search results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Good evidence: go to images.google.com type in "mountain gorilla" Are your pictures on a par with those that appear in the search results? Glad you asked...why yes...yes it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 barlowROC, No beauty shots yet, I don't know what I would do if I got them. Mountain gorilla's seem to have no aversion to being photographed once they have let you get close. They move out into the sunlight and show themselves. Some of the groups have been habituated to human interaction. None of the above so far for BF in my experience. I have made progress each year, and given a few more might get a decent "sunshine" shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Krakatoa, Your idea for an anonymous gallery sounds good. Obviously, it would not be anonymous to staff. We can look at each others blob squatches. I know I would like it, anyway. I must have sounded very irritating, judging from your post. I do not mean to sound snooty. I am just trying to explain how demanding tones and character assassination don't encourage evidence submission. But you just proved what I was saying, I guess. I just skip a post that is irritating or poster I don't really like much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Here is one of my Squatch pics, can you see him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 1327630292[/url]' post='137230']Here is one of my Squatch pics, can you see him? Only when I cross my eyes and sneeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Glad you asked...why yes...yes it is Dammit, GJ! How long have you had this image?! This is the clearest shot I have ever seen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 If data could be evaluated in a mature, dispassionate way then I am convinced more would be presented for the group. And there it is folks, the ugly truth of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And there it is folks, the ugly truth of the matter. Hmmm, I disagree to an extent. If someone presents evidence that looks sketchy, or isn't really good, isn't it the duty of all to point out the problems inherent within? If a biologist looks at a peer's salmon data and thinks" well, this doesn't look right, it looks fudged a bit" shouldn't he alert said peer that there are some problems with his data? Being courteous is one thing, but in my experience anyway, when you tell a footer his picture looks like a suit they get really nasty. I see it as a problem some people seem to have with criticism. If you can't handle criticism (or your data/pic/video...etc can't stand up to it) then this entire Bigfoot thing is never going to go anywhere. Good data/evidence stands on it's own two feet and needs no defending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good evidence: go to images.google.com type in "mountain gorilla" Are your pictures on a par with those that appear in the search results? Wow, those look like a guy wearing a bad monkey suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Is it that people don't want their evidence examined? Or that they don't want themselves analyzed and attention drawn to them? If it's the latter allow me to be the first to offer...send it to me and I will at my own cost (if any) host and link and post whatever evidence is sent completely unaltered and completely anonymously. I have an old gmail account I used to collect local sighting reports SWWAbigfoot @ gmail.com I have my own career and interests I'm not going to hound for more information or judge, just present it. I won't act as a go between for others to interrogate you for more info, will just pass along the actual files. If it's the former, well I can't offer anything to help with that. Maybe something will come to light with this offer, I know there's others who are more known in bigfootery and I'm just an unknown, but if anyone wants an anonymous way to present evidence...there you have it. -KW, hoping to not make a fool of himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Being courteous is one thing, but in my experience anyway, when you tell a footer his picture looks like a suit they get really nasty. I see it as a problem some people seem to have with criticism. When the person with the picture knows without a doubt that his (or her) picture is a bigfoot, criticism serves no purpose except to make the owner mad & the critics look ridiculous. When you have a picture that you wish was clearer, closer, or whatever, you don't need to hear it from 50 other people, because you already know. Why would you want to hear a bunch of armchair "bigfoot experts" that don't know what they're talking about, criticizing your efforts? Personally, I don't see any future in it. Good data/evidence stands on it's own two feet and needs no defending. If that's so, why do so many people still feel the need to defend the PGF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wookie73 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 When the person with the picture knows without a doubt that his (or her) picture is a bigfoot, criticism serves no purpose except to make the owner mad & the critics look ridiculous. When you have a picture that you wish was clearer, closer, or whatever, you don't need to hear it from 50 other people, because you already know. Why would you want to hear a bunch of armchair "bigfoot experts" that don't know what they're talking about, criticizing your efforts? Personally, I don't see any future in it. If that's so, why do so many people still feel the need to defend the PGF? because there is compelling evidence to say it's a hoax. If there wasn't nobody would debate against it. Your statement about "armchair Bigfoot experts" is a logical fallacy, as there are no Bigfoot experts. It's all conjecture and speculation. If you disagree all I ask is for some evidence to back up your claims. Claims without evidence are just tales, stories and folklore. In other words, any statements made without evidence ,while not necessarily false,cannot be supported as being true and are thusly under the guise of lending no credence to the existence of Bigfoot. I myself would love to see an HD video or picture that was compelling. The problem is, they are all too blurry, too fake looking or to inconclusive to be of much use. That doesn't mean they are all hoaxes. But it's impossible to suggest them as "evidence". True evidence DOES stand on it's own two feet. If you feel that you don't want your position scrutinized might I suggest keeping your position private. As any person worth their scientific salt is gonna require supporting evidence of any claim. As of yet, no evidence exists, when that time comes, I will be happy to look at it and support it if it merits it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) And now a moment for rebuttal: "because there is compelling evidence to say it's a hoax. If there wasn't nobody would debate against it." Human nature, as I have observed it, would certainly argue against the latter point. "Your statement about "armchair Bigfoot experts" is a logical fallacy, as there are no Bigfoot experts." Of course there are bigfoot experts. Really. A few do come to mind. "In other words, any statements made without evidence, while not necessarily false,cannot be supported as being true and are thusly under the guise of lending no credence to the existence of Bigfoot. " thusly under the guise of lending no credence? Really? "It's all conjecture and speculation. If you disagree all I ask is for some evidence to back up your claims. Claims without evidence are just tales, stories and folklore. " Debate club? "True evidence DOES stand on it's own two feet. If you feel that you don't want your position scrutinized might I suggest keeping your position private. As any person worth their scientific salt is gonna require supporting evidence of any claim. As of yet, no evidence exists, when that time comes, I will be happy to look at it and support it if it merits it." It is probably true that demanding proof, or demanding anything, for that matter, goes against the grain of human nature and will mostly just earn you resentment from folks. Actually, learning to accept comments in their intended conversational manner and using a less stringent standard of proof might be more practical on an internet bigfoot chat forum. Edited February 1, 2012 by Kings Canyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts