Latest Bigfoot "evidence"

[Correa Neto]

Am I missing something?

Yup. My pics are better. They are still under analysis from... Specialists. I will show them (the pics, not the specialists), however, to a few selected dedicated honest people willing to contribuite to my research and after, of course, signing an NDA. I don't want to compromise my research area.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

It is not anyone persons personal opinion that planes exist, that planes can crash, and that crashed planes can be found. That the subject of the claim is known to be real is not opinion, it's just fact. That is why the bar for evidence can be lowered in comparison to the evidence required to validate the existence of bigfoot. Bigfoot is not already known to exist and no one has ever provided the level of evidence for bigfoot that is being provided for this plane crash.

There is nothing extraordinary about the plane crash. Unusual? kind of. Amazing? a little.

Bigfoot is an extraordinary claim with, I repeat, no evidence even remotely approaching the plane crash's evidence.

There's a little more to their claim than simply finding a plane crash site. It's a particular plane crash of the Chilean Soccer team. That is extraordinary. Possibly it is their plane, but there hasn't been any follow up to verify anything yet.

I agree with you partly though, planes are on record to exist and Bigfoot is not. I do understand your point of view about lowering the bar for things you already know to exist but, I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same. To deviate from this is inviting trouble. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

" ...I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same"

Who is arguing otherwise? The burden is on the claimant. As in the onus, the responsibility. How much evidence is required is different from the idea of incumbency to provide. Again, I suspect that you know this and you instead prefer to end your ramblings with ridiculous straw men in an effort to deflect from the actual point.

You're flailing Chris.

 

[Biscuit]

There's a little more to their claim than simply finding a plane crash site. It's a particular plane crash of the Chilean Soccer team. That is extraordinary. Possibly it is their plane, but there hasn't been any follow up to verify anything yet.

I agree with you partly though, planes are on record to exist and Bigfoot is not. I do understand your point of view about lowering the bar for things you already know to exist but, I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same. To deviate from this is inviting trouble. Chris B.

Why? It was known to have existed, it was known to have crashed in that area. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

The burden of proof is not the same as the evidence for the claim. So far the people claiming bigfoot exist have yet to meet their burden of proof because they have failed to provide any evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

As far as that plane wreck, they should have been able to photograph an identifying feature, without revealing the location.

That's a point against them.

Chris could also do the same regarding his bigfoot encounters. So that's a point against him, too.

Both claim not to want to reveal the location, but in both cases revealing the location is not necessary to show clear evidence.

 

[The Shrike]

As far as that plane wreck, they should have been able to photograph an identifying feature, without revealing the location.

They might have shared something more specific with the relevant authorities and shared photos a bit more vague with the media. Either way, it shouldn't take long to know the full story, I'd say a few weeks at most.

If we take bigfoot to be similarly provisional, then we've been waiting since . . .

1) "real soon"
2) Sykes
3) Ketchum
4) Moneymaker
5) Meldrum
6) Skookum
7) Bluff Creek
8) Ape Canyon
9) Jacko
10) Daniel Boone
11) Hudson Bay Company
12) Pleistocene

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

" ...I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same"

Who is arguing otherwise? The burden is on the claimant. As in the onus, the responsibility. How much evidence is required is different from the idea of incumbency to provide. Again, I suspect that you know this and you instead prefer to end your ramblings with ridiculous straw men in an effort to deflect from the actual point.

You're flailing Chris.

Biscuit, didn't you read the post?
Straw man? , I prefer the tin man. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Chris, could you please point to where you think someone is shifting the burden of proof from the claimant?

Thanks

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, could you please point to where you think someone is shifting the burden of proof from the claimant?

Thanks

You must be confused. I was having a discussion with Biscuit that you must not be able to follow. Nothing about shifting the burden of proof onto someone else was mentioned. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

Chris, based on the post that you quoted, it seems like you are confusing burden of proof with evidence. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof? It has nothing to do with extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. Burden of proof simply means the person making the claim must present evidence to support the claim. Not the opposite. Like, for example, when footers say things like bigfoot is real until you prove otherwise.

So, please explain what the post you quoted has to do with the concept of burden of proof.


"You must be confused. I was having a discussion with Biscuit that you must not be able to follow. Nothing about shifting the burden of proof onto someone else was mentioned" ChrisB

Then why did you close your response to biscuit with "...I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same" ? Biscuits post has nothing to do with the concept of burden of proof. So why did you bring it into your response?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Why? It was known to have existed, it was known to have crashed in that area. There is nothing extraordinary about it.

The burden of proof is not the same as the evidence for the claim. So far the people claiming bigfoot exist have yet to meet their burden of proof because they have failed to provide any evidence.

The evidence provided in the plane crash story is no more than you'll read in any typical Bigfoot story. Some of the Bigfoot stories have clear pics as well. The recent "swamp ape taking a bath" fiasco is one. So no, I think the bar should be the same. If one can be accepted based on pics and a narrative, so could the other. Accepting neither based on preliminary evidence is still the best policy. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, based on the post that you quoted, it seems like you are confusing burden of proof with evidence. Do you understand the concept of burden of proof? It has nothing to do with extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. Burden of proof simply means the person making the claim must present evidence to support the claim. Not the opposite. Like, for example, when footers say things like bigfoot is real until you prove otherwise.

So, please explain what the post you quoted has to do with the concept of burden of proof.


"You must be confused. I was having a discussion with Biscuit that you must not be able to follow. Nothing about shifting the burden of proof onto someone else was mentioned" ChrisB

Then why did you close your response to biscuit with "...I still say the burden of proof for any story should remain the same" ? Biscuits post has nothing to do with the concept of burden of proof. So why did you bring it into your response?

We seem to be communicating just fine. Evidence, proof, burden, bar, raising, lowering, known, unknown, yeah I think I got it.
Thanks. Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

^^ Ah the word salad response. You sound like DWA.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

^^ Ah the word salad response. You sound like DWA.

If you can understand we were discussing the presentation of evidence, and not a particular position I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

The one with the burden of proof is also responsible for submitting the evidence. As Shrike likes to remind me, "words mean stuff"

You should know by now, I type what I mean. You're welcome to read between the lines but the important part is on the lines. Chris B.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The one with the burden of proof is also responsible for submitting the evidence.

Which would mean a lot more if you would even put a token attempt into even pretending that you at any point in the future will even consider the idea of perhaps entertaining the idea of actually providing anything that could possibly be mistaken for the tiniest shred of evidence for Bigfoot.

But noooo. Everytime we try to ask for it you go run behind the "I'm not here to convince you that Bigfoot exists" routine.

You can't narrowly define the discussion as "It's your burden of proof to provide evidence for the counter argument for the argument I've completely failed to make."

Nobody here but you shoulders any burden of proof at this moment.

All of our counter arguments are simply either a courtesy or... practice pretty much. You haven't given us anything we are obligated to counter.

 

[HarryHenderson]

If you can understand we were discussing the presentation of evidence, and not a particular position I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

The one with the burden of proof is also responsible for submitting the evidence. As Shrike likes to remind me, "words mean stuff"

You should know by now, I type what I mean. You're welcome to read between the lines but the important part is on the lines. Chris B.

Really? The one with the burden of proof is also responsible for submitting the evidence? Thanks for that, umm, clarification. I guess that's as opposed to the one with the burden of proof not being also responsible for submitting the evidence.

And then poof, right on cue a non-sequitur "words mean stuff" reminder. As if you're showing us how you've freshened up your act by pretending you learned something in earnest from The Shrike. The "pretending" being prima facie evidence you never actually learned it. Nor have you ever properly acknowledged the notions he originally pointed out and applied that simple fact to.

But as I read somewhere recently, you type what you mean. Well, okay.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think Chris should be a finalist in 2 categories.

1. Typing the longest responses without saying much.
2. Typing the longest responses without addressing the questions.

 

[Resume]

The evidence provided in the plane crash story is no more than you'll read in any typical Bigfoot story.

Actually, no. The reason being that we have airplanes we can match up with the alleged fuselage in the photos that allow us a provisional position on the claim. We have no such match up for footie. Just stories.

Some of the Bigfoot stories have clear pics as well.

Yes, and they are clearly not bigfoots.

The recent "swamp ape taking a bath" fiasco is one.

See above.

So no, I think the bar should be the same. If one can be accepted based on pics and a narrative, so could the other.

But they're not the same, as demonstrated above.

Accepting neither based on preliminary evidence is still the best policy. Chris B.

Provisional acceptance of the missing aircraft claim, pending further review of the evidence, is entirely different from accepting a claim for a new species with absolutely no pending evidence to review. Ever.

Unless you have some Chris. Do you?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Which would mean a lot more if you would even put a token attempt into even pretending that you at any point in the future will even consider the idea of perhaps entertaining the idea of actually providing anything that could possibly be mistaken for the tiniest shred of evidence for Bigfoot.

But noooo. Everytime we try to ask for it you go run behind the "I'm not here to convince you that Bigfoot exists" routine.

You can't narrowly define the discussion as "It's your burden of proof to provide evidence for the counter argument for the argument I've completely failed to make."

Nobody here but you shoulders any burden of proof at this moment.

All of our counter arguments are simply either a courtesy or... practice pretty much. You haven't given us anything we are obligated to counter.

When I present my story about Bigfoot to the media. There will be evidence to prove what I am saying is correct and true.

Really? The one with the burden of proof is also responsible for submitting the evidence? Thanks for that, umm, clarification. I guess that's as opposed to the one with the burden of proof not being also responsible for submitting the evidence.

And then poof, right on cue a non-sequitur "words mean stuff" reminder. As if you're showing us how you've freshened up your act by pretending you learned something in earnest from The Shrike. The "pretending" being prima facie evidence you never actually learned it. Nor have you ever properly acknowledged the notions he originally pointed out and applied that simple fact to.

But as I read somewhere recently, you type what you mean. Well, okay.

Obviously, Biscuit and myself were discussing the presentation of evidence and not the position of who is responsible.

I enjoy input from other members as well but I do ask that potential contributors use some context application when reviewing the conversation for comment. Or is that too much to ask?

I think Chris should be a finalist in 2 categories.

1. Typing the longest responses without saying much.
2. Typing the longest responses without addressing the questions.

Was there something you need me to address in particular?

Actually, no. The reason being that we have airplanes we can match up with the alleged fuselage in the photos that allow us a provisional position on the claim. We have no such match up for footie. Just stories.

Yes, and they are clearly not bigfoots.

See above.


But they're not the same, as demonstrated above.

Provisional acceptance of the missing aircraft claim, pending further review of the evidence, is entirely different from accepting a claim for a new species with absolutely no pending evidence to review. Ever.

Unless you have some Chris. Do you?

I see. So you also subscribe to the philosophy the bar for evidence can be lowered or raised depending on your own beliefs and knowledge. I disagree of course.

I do see what you mean though. Airplanes exist of course and plane crash sites also exist. But the claim of finding that particular plane is what's extraordinary and that makes it as suspect as a Bigfoot claim in my view.

When I finish my study and submit my findings to the press, there will be undeniable evidence of Bigfoot presented yes.
Chris B.

 

[dmaker]

pointless