Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Compare the evidence for bigfoot with, for example, the evidence for the lone wolverine extant in California, and you'll begin to grasp why skeptics and scientists reject the animal's existence as imaginary.
- Status
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Vort, the quality of several evidence pieces, reasonings and works of many bigfooters is so low thar "poking some fun" is way above what they actually deserve.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Right, Vort....."mildly poke fun at "Footers"......with words such as "Lunatic"..."Irrational"..."Crazy"..."Fanatic"..."Troll"..."Liar"....etc, etc...
(This, bikerdruid....is the "LESS than nothing" part.....verbal assaults.)
First, you call people childish names, and you frequently employ derisive language in your own posts. You cannot attempt to take the high ground here, Yeti, because you are guilty of doing the very thing you're pretending to criticise.
Second, I cannot speak for others, but I do not use insulting or childish language when addressing arguments of any kind. The words "irrational" and "troll", which you list above as though they are insults, have specific, objective definitions which your behavior in this forum meets. They are not childish invectives, but descriptions of behavior and actions.
"SweatyYeti is an irrational troll" is ad hominem argument, and therefore a logical fallacy, but it is nonetheless a truthful and accurate statement, as demonstrated by your posting history.
No one has called Bikerdruid any of the insults you've listed.
Beaver Hateman
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 176
No it isn't. 'X's position is wrong because X is an irrational troll' is an ad hominem argument.
No, I won't:
It isn't a motion picture, so it could be Bob Heironimous' dog or cat in a suit. Please prove otherwise. I'm a skeptic.
How did this wolverine get from Northern Washington to Lake Tahoe? Through the desert? Sorry. It's Bob's cat in a suit.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Disgusted,
I like the way you said " No, I won't: ", but then you did ..
I like the way you said " No, I won't: ", but then you did ..
Skeptical Greg, I like how you either misinterpreted or twisted my response in your utter confusion or denial. Let me try to make it even more simple for you:
No, I won't "begin to grasp why skeptics and scientists reject the animal's existence as imaginary", since wolverines have been declared extinct in California for nearly 90 years, and all there is to indicate otherwise is a "grainy" photo from two years ago. Sorry. Skepticism works both ways, not just at the various whims of various skeptics. If wolverines exist in California, somebody is going to have to prove it.
No, I won't "begin to grasp why skeptics and scientists reject the animal's existence as imaginary", since wolverines have been declared extinct in California for nearly 90 years, and all there is to indicate otherwise is a "grainy" photo from two years ago. Sorry. Skepticism works both ways, not just at the various whims of various skeptics. If wolverines exist in California, somebody is going to have to prove it.
I'll try:
Do you need a map, too, or can you continue your geography lesson from here?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
But there is proof they were there nearly90 years ago, right ?
Is there any doubt that wolverines do in fact, exist ?
All there is, is a grainy photo ? Hmmmmmm.
And with Bigfoot, we have ...........
So, Disgusted, why not tell us who you are/was at BFF, and a belated welcome to The Thunderdome...
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
The game-cam shot of the wolverine is an unambiguous photo of a known and documented animal. Its proportions, fur distribution, and other features can be compared clearly and without obfuscation to other pictures and descriptions of wolverine type specimens. No animal suits designed to fit other animals are known to exist. The postulation that the wolverine in the picture is a suited animal of another species is an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
All pictures of "bigfoot" are ambiguous frames of an unknown and undocumented animal. No comparison to type specimens can be made. Ape-like suits designed to fit humans are well known and well documented to exist. The postulation that the subject of any given picture is an undocumented animal, namely bigfoot, is an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
All pictures of "bigfoot" are ambiguous frames of an unknown and undocumented animal. No comparison to type specimens can be made. Ape-like suits designed to fit humans are well known and well documented to exist. The postulation that the subject of any given picture is an undocumented animal, namely bigfoot, is an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
Known, documented, and declared extinct in the area where the photo was taken by a self-operated camera for 90 years. The closest location where they are established as still existing is 900 miles away, and an arid basin (not wolverine habitat) separates the two areas. I'm a skeptic. A game cam photo is not compelling evidence.
The claim that Bob Heironimous in a suit is the Patterson film subject is just as extraordinary, and his claims are riddled with inconsistencies or outright lies.
Not really. Most, especially the Patterson film which is in motion, are one of just two possibilities. They are either a man in a suit, or they are an animal thus far undocumented by science. There is no other possible explanation for the Patterson film subject, unless you wish to posit that it is extraterrestrial or a robot.
drapier
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 273
Here's a nice map of the Great Basin.
Yes, that is a good map of the Great Basin, however, the border drawn on the map only represents the endorheic watershed boundary. The map clearly shows that the arid area extends westward much farther. It is a tall order to claim that wolverines crossed that area. If there are wolverines in the Sierras, they have been there all along, even though science has officially declared them extinct nearly a century ago.
I may be slow, but I just don't understand the argument here. Oh, BTW, Wolverine's transit arid basins all the frickin time. I'm still waiting for information on that desert.
m
http://sibr.com/mammals/M159.html
m
http://sibr.com/mammals/M159.html
Yes, you may be slow. Can you tell me just what it is that you mangle? I have my suspicions, but I'd love to hear your declaration.
Your evidence, please?
The word "arid" in the description of the Great Basin didn't do it for you? Never flown over it, huh? Never driven through it, huh? Well, just continue to wait. Maybe it will eventually come to you. Slowly.
Vortigern99
Sorcerer Supreme
Great! I admire your skepticism. If you will apply that same level of critical thinking to claims and photos of bigfoot, you will similarly reject those as "not compelling evidence", and we'll be in agreement.
Also, you neglected my other points, namely:
[The wolverine's] proportions, fur distribution, and other features can be compared clearly and without obfuscation to other pictures and descriptions of wolverine type specimens. No animal suits designed to fit other animals are known to exist. The postulation that the wolverine in the picture is a suited animal of another species is an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
Can we conclude that you concede these points, and are evading them because you can devise no convincing rebuttal?
Great! Although his claim is not extraordinary in the least (since we know human beings can fit into and perform inside of ape-like costumes), I'm willing to dismiss Bob Heironimous and his claims from this discussion altogether. Let's proceed with the assumption (for the sake of argument) that Heironimous was not involved in the PG film on any level.
Note how that doesn't alter my position in the slightest, nor does it relieve the burden of proof from those who advance the claim that the filmed subject is an undocumented animal.
We agree here, and I appreciate you clarifying my language. However, once again you've neglected to address my other points. Can we conclude that you concede these points, and are evading them because you can devise no convincing rebuttal?:
No comparison to type specimens can be made. Ape-like suits designed to fit humans are well known and well documented to exist. The postulation that the subject of any given picture is an undocumented animal, namely bigfoot, is an extraordinary claim for which there is no evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
- Status