That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 09:17 AM)grizzlysnake Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 09:13 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Here are two articles where I've debunked some bigfoot stories that are accepted as gospel by some footers.

* https://apeimmortal.wordpress.com/2013/0...seriously/

* https://apeimmortal.wordpress.com/2013/0...-braiding/
I never heard of bigfoot braiding horse hair. I thought only gnomes and domovoi did that.

That's the problem. Proponents of this crap are ignorant of the long history of attributing braiding to supernatural creatures. They think the only explanation is Bigfoot.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ghostexorcist's post
04-12-2014, 09:57 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 09:25 AM)Free Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 10:41 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  "Hey that's awesome guys! You got a specimen or sample for study?"

'Not at all! But we tots all saw it, pinky swear scouts honor!"

REJECTED FOR PUBLICATION

Are you suggesting that every animal that has been observed, but not captured, has a questionable existence?

Careful now ... setting you up. Fair warning.

Big Grin

I’ll heed your warning. Define observed please.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 09:59 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 09:25 AM)Free Wrote:  
(03-12-2014 10:41 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  "Hey that's awesome guys! You got a specimen or sample for study?"

'Not at all! But we tots all saw it, pinky swear scouts honor!"

REJECTED FOR PUBLICATION

Are you suggesting that every animal that has been observed, but not captured, has a questionable existence?

Careful now ... setting you up. Fair warning.

Big Grin

Credibly observed? Like with clear, unambiguous images?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2014 10:26 AM by Free.)
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 09:25 AM)Free Wrote:  Are you suggesting that every animal that has been observed, but not captured, has a questionable existence?

Careful now ... setting you up. Fair warning.

Big Grin

I’ll heed your warning. Define observed please.

Many of the following deep sea creatures are unidentifiable due to not being physically captured. These images were captured by scientists.

Unidentified Deep Sea Creatures

Scientists claim they exist because of the photography. Should we then make claims of "photoshop" or fraud just because we cannot physically examine them?

Are they credible? If so, why would you accept them as credible?

And have you figured out yet what my point will be in my next post? Fair warning. Smile

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 10:22 AM)Free Wrote:  And have you figured out yet what my point will be in my next post? Fair warning. Smile

WE DON'T KNOW THEREFORE ALIENS.

Seems legit.

Dodgy

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
04-12-2014, 10:33 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 10:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:22 AM)Free Wrote:  And have you figured out yet what my point will be in my next post? Fair warning. Smile

WE DON'T KNOW THEREFORE ALIENS.

Seems legit.

Dodgy

Point being ...

Images prove nothing? Expert eyewitness observation demonstrates nothing?

I guess they simply do not exist?

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 10:33 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  WE DON'T KNOW THEREFORE ALIENS.

Seems legit.

Dodgy

Point being ...

Images prove nothing? Expert eyewitness observation demonstrates nothing?

I guess they simply do not exist?

Big Grin

Um, no. That is not even remotely what I or anyone else has said. What is your reason for misrepresenting me and others?

A lack of conclusive evidence does not grant license to freewheel speculation purely by dint of its being unfalsifiable. That's a laughably poor methodology.

Even so-called "expert" eyewitness observation is worthless absent external corroboration. Since you love forcing terrible legal analogies, you should know that individual testimony without that corroboration is in fact recognised in court and even has its own name - hearsay.

If something is unknown the only intellectually honest conclusion is to say just that: it is unknown.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
04-12-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 10:45 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:33 AM)Free Wrote:  Point being ...

Images prove nothing? Expert eyewitness observation demonstrates nothing?

I guess they simply do not exist?

Big Grin

Um, no. That is not even remotely what I or anyone else has said. What is your reason for misrepresenting me and others?

A lack of conclusive evidence does not grant license to freewheel speculation purely by dint of its being unfalsifiable. That's a laughably poor methodology.

Even so-called "expert" eyewitness observation is worthless absent external corroboration. Since you love forcing terrible legal analogies, you should know that individual testimony without that corroboration is in fact recognised in court and even has its own name - hearsay.

If something is unknown the only intellectually honest conclusion is to say just that: it is unknown.

Okay, so in regards to those unidentified species of fish, should we look at them and say which one of the following:

1. They cannot identify them as being a fish of any kind?

2. They identified them as being an unknown species of fish?

Considering we have maybe 2 or 3 expert witnesses who are highly experienced with marine life, what is the most correct option above, 1 or 2?

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 10:56 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:45 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Um, no. That is not even remotely what I or anyone else has said. What is your reason for misrepresenting me and others?

A lack of conclusive evidence does not grant license to freewheel speculation purely by dint of its being unfalsifiable. That's a laughably poor methodology.

Even so-called "expert" eyewitness observation is worthless absent external corroboration. Since you love forcing terrible legal analogies, you should know that individual testimony without that corroboration is in fact recognised in court and even has its own name - hearsay.

If something is unknown the only intellectually honest conclusion is to say just that: it is unknown.

Okay, so in regards to those unidentified species of fish, should we look at them and say which one of the following:

1. They cannot identify them as being a fish of any kind?

2. They identified them as being an unknown species of fish?

Considering we have maybe 2 or 3 expert witnesses who are highly experienced with marine life, what is the most correct option above, 1 or 2?

Drinking Beverage

Ah! But "unknown" and "unknown fish" are very different matters. The latter necessarily implies a much greater degree of knowledge than the former. Any scientific description worth its salt would never conflate the two.
(incidentally and somewhat related...)

I realise that all of this is circling around your pet woo. But you must admit to yourself that the one example you're beating to death consists only of people saying what they think something wasn't - yet a third very different matter.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
04-12-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:03 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 10:56 AM)Free Wrote:  Okay, so in regards to those unidentified species of fish, should we look at them and say which one of the following:

1. They cannot identify them as being a fish of any kind?

2. They identified them as being an unknown species of fish?

Considering we have maybe 2 or 3 expert witnesses who are highly experienced with marine life, what is the most correct option above, 1 or 2?

Drinking Beverage

Ah! But "unknown" and "unknown fish" are very different matters. The latter necessarily implies a much greater degree of knowledge than the former. Any scientific description worth its salt would never conflate the two.

Okay, one step further, and please bear with me here. Just one question:

Did they see a fish or not?

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: