That Damn Bigfoot Thing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey, who said anything about aliens?

I'm talking about fish here.

Big Grin

Of course you are. Unsure

Like cjlr said, you are conflating two very different things.

I'm not saying a word.

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, 11:35 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:22 AM)Free Wrote:  Hey, who said anything about aliens?

I'm talking about fish here.

Big Grin

Of course you are. Unsure

Like cjlr said, you are conflating two very different things.

Naw, FC, it's totally legit to compare extensive photographic documentation under controlled conditions to some schmuck who's just saying "I KNOW WHAT I SAW AND IT WEREN'T NO PLANE".

... 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, 11:36 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Of course you are. Unsure

Like cjlr said, you are conflating two very different things.

Naw, FC, it's totally legit to compare extensive photographic documentation under controlled conditions to some schmuck who's just saying "I KNOW WHAT I SAW AND IT WEREN'T NO PLANE".

PHOTO SHOP!

Tongue

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, 11:40 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:36 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Naw, FC, it's totally legit to compare extensive photographic documentation under controlled conditions to some schmuck who's just saying "I KNOW WHAT I SAW AND IT WEREN'T NO PLANE".

PHOTO SHOP!

Tongue

For that to apply there would have to first be a photograph. In your pet case there is not even that.

... 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, 11:42 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:36 AM)Free Wrote:  PHOTO SHOP!

Tongue
Yes.
Because if you're going to Photoshop something, you'll take the time to Photoshop the female version of a fish that we already know exists...

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
04-12-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:40 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:36 AM)Free Wrote:  PHOTO SHOP!

Tongue

For that to apply there would have to first be a photograph. In your pet case there is not even that.

My case? I'm talking about fish here.

The odds are very good that twelve three persons highly experienced with aircraft aquatic life seen a aircraft fish that they could not identify.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Bowing

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, 11:52 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:47 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:40 AM)cjlr Wrote:  For that to apply there would have to first be a photograph. In your pet case there is not even that.

My case? I'm talking about fish here.

The odds are very good that twelve three persons highly experienced with aircraft aquatic life seen a aircraft fish that they could not identify.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Bowing

It is amazing that you still don't understand that the quality of evidence required depends on the nature of the claim.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
04-12-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:35 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:25 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Of course you are. Unsure

Like cjlr said, you are conflating two very different things.

Naw, FC, it's totally legit to compare extensive photographic documentation under controlled conditions to some schmuck who's just saying "I KNOW WHAT I SAW AND IT WEREN'T NO PLANE".

I have so much to learn.

“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, 11:57 AM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 11:47 AM)Free Wrote:  My case? I'm talking about fish here.

The odds are very good that twelve three persons highly experienced with aircraft aquatic life seen a aircraft fish that they could not identify.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

Bowing

It is amazing that you still don't understand that the quality of evidence required depends on the nature of the claim.

If you are referring to the UFO thread, what is so unusual about 12 people- experienced with aircraft- seeing an aircraft they could not identify?

How is that less credible than 3 persons seeing a fish they could not identify?

If we take all pictures out of the equation, and replaced the 3 marine persons with 6 marine persons, and they all said they observed some fish they could not identify, and described the fish ... then should we claim they didn't see any fish at all, or that what they seen was not fish?

I don't think so. They are credible. They seen some fish.

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, 12:02 PM
RE: That Damn Bigfoot Thing
(04-12-2014 11:57 AM)Free Wrote:  If you are referring to the UFO thread, what is so unusual about 12 people- experienced with aircraft- seeing an aircraft they could not identify?

How is that less credible than 3 persons seeing a fish they could not identify?
Because claiming to see a new type of fish is not the same thing as claiming to see an alien spacecraft from another planet.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: