- Status
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
It's not a silly question for a person who thinks the government brought down NYC skyscrapers then covered it up.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
hmmm...drewbot asked the question...does he think that too?
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Here's why the "Troy" analogy doesn't work.
Troy was long considered a myth. Then in 1865 some archeologists went looking for it in Turkey. Almost immediately they found the site of Troy, or what is likely the site of Troy, showing that it wasn't a myth, or that the myth has a solid evidential basis.
Bigfoot has long been considered a myth. For six decades, people having been actively searching for it in "sighting hotspots", while its reported habitat has been combed over, photographed, explored, studied and cared for by biologists, wildlife professionals, hikers, hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, photographers, park rangers, and campers. No unambiguous photography which could not be hoaxed, and no physical evidence that can be identified as such -- DNA, hair, scat, bones, blood, fossils -- has ever been discovered in the 50+ years that people have been actively searching for it.
I trust you can see the distinction.
Drewbot
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 7,719
I think that if you think the government brought down the NYC skyscrapers, then you are indeed kooky enough to believe that the government covers up the Bigfoot. I would also assume that you think Bigfoot invisibility studies were conducted at UC Berkley in the 1970's.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
If you've read enough of JREF to know and recognize what constitutes "JREF typical", then you must have also read, or at least perused, the hundreds of pages in which we have dissected, critically and analytically, every shred of putative evidence for the existence of bigfoot. Footprints, photos, film and video, supposed physical evidence, and anecdotal accounts have all been examined thoroughly, and in many cases humorlessly and without snotty remarks of any kind, by contributing members, over the course of years and thousands of hours of combined personal effort.
Then one new poster comes in and identifies himself as a bigfoot believer, attesting that he knows for a fact that his brother once saw one, without offering any substantiation of his claim and demonstrating a credulous, unskeptical, uncritical mind. He has not looked at our hundreds of pages preceding his two-sentence post, he has not investigated the evidence which shows beyond all reasonable doubt that bigfoot cannot exist. Yet he expects instant respect and serious consideration of his claims.
Can there be any question why this manner of posting would invite derision?
bikerdruid
Philosopher
man, you ass-u-me a lot!
bikerdruid
Philosopher
you obviously did not read my posts.
i did not say i was a believer.
i said that my b-in law claims to have seen one and that i had no reason to not believe him.
perhaps you should go back and read my posts again, before you make more false claims.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Oh boy, a semantic argument! What fun.
I read and understood your posts. You reported that your brother saw a bigfoot and that you believe him. That means you believe in bigfoot, Dr. Genius.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
really....if i have no reason to disbelieve something, it means that i am open to evidence that may arise.
i stated that i don't know the truth.
the jury is out.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
I'm open to the evidence, too. That open-minded quality regarding the evidence is what convinced me that bigfoot cannot and does not exist. I started out a believer, insofar as I believed that bigfoot might exist; but after analyzing the evidence (as I described upthread) I saw that there was no conceivable, logical or rational way that BF could exist.
If there is evidence out there which refutes that opinion, I will be glad to examine it. If BF is shown to exist I will be very happy and excited. As it stands, however, the evidence is quite clear on the matter.
If there is evidence out there which refutes that opinion, I will be glad to examine it. If BF is shown to exist I will be very happy and excited. As it stands, however, the evidence is quite clear on the matter.
bikerdruid
Philosopher
...a 'lack of evidence' cannot prove anything.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Agreed. I recommend beginning with this thread:
[url="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137614&highlight=unambiguous']"Simple question for bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?"[/url]
You'll find in the first 10 or so pages of that thread, some extremely compelling evidence that bigfoot cannot reasonably exist. You'll also find the gradual deterioration of my own belief system as it comes up against Kitakaze's careful, methodical presentation of fact and commentary.
In later pages of the thread, you'll find discussions about other possible explanations for sightings beyond mere lying or misidentification. These include known, studied and documented phenomena of the human mind such as hypnagogic hallucination, regional expectation and "the Red Panda syndrome".
Happy reading!
EDIT: Changed "first 20 pages" to "first 10 pages", since that thread is only 16 pages long.
Last edited:
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
The lack of evidence demonstrates that the animal cannot reasonably be said to exist.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
There is a lack of evidence that a pink unicorn lives in my garden.Is there any chance of me bumping into one?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
It proves there is a lack of evidence .
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Don't complicate things for him.
I must say, we do not know what sort of studies the Pentagon has done but it is pretty clear they worked on what would generally be called paranormal topics. Those are our military geniuses.
- Status