Bigfoot DNA

[gigantor]

hey Ray,

So, would you have us believe that if you prove one case to be false, that all other cases should be automatically discarded also?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Anyway, I guess I can post some "credible" ones from the BFRO. It's really up to you to decide if they're credible though.

No, your job was to pick one and defend its credibility. The best one you've got.

Ray destroyed the first one. The second one was painful to endure, all the irrelevant "let me tell you about myself" autobiography - is this the one you are defending?

You can't use sightings which are not credible in your own opinion. That makes you either irrational, or just a troll.

The few that I posted, are not very credible on their own of course. But with the other few thousand on the BFRO, i'd say many are real. Some of them are even from our friends on BFF, remember.

On a more personal level, I know a fishing lodge owner who's had experiences. He's the kind of guy who would never in a million years believe in such silly stories, but after living in a remote area up north for 10 years, he now believes differently.

OK, you are not defending any of the above. So let's go to these fishing lodge ones. Tell us the details. Don't be coy. Just out with it.

 

[gigantor]

So, would you have us believe that if you prove one case to be false, that all other cases should be automatically discarded also?

 

[I am Bigfoot]

So, would you have us believe that if you prove one case to be false, that all other cases should be automatically discarded also?

No, but he was asked to post credible stories and he posted just you know...whatever he saw. Or you know. Whatever.

If that is his level of dedication to this, then why would anyone bother with the rest.

He was asked for the best he could come up with and according to his own admission he spent very little time coming up with something he isn't even willing to stand by. If someone presents evidence they have no interest in defending then it can be discarded. If someone isn't convinced by their own evidence, then why should anyone else pay attention to it? If he as a believer in bigfoot doesn't find those claims all that compelling then...where does it place us?

I, and I'm sure others here as well, want to see the evidence that convinced him. The very same evidence. He might really and truly have something, but if he isn't willing to try to make his case, we aren't going to try to do it for him.

 

[gigantor]

You are trying to make it a personal argument. Regardless of what he thinks or believes, there are thousands of reports. Basically, you are attempting to prove a negative.

If you don't realize this, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

You are trying to make it a personal argument

No I'm not. If you don't understand why I want the evidence he actually relies on, then re-read my post. If you still don't understand...I don't know anyone that could possibly help you.

Regardless of what he thinks or believes, there are thousands of reports.

And? Who cares?

Basically, you are attempting to prove a negative.

Uh....what? Where was I trying to prove anything? I was asking at most asking for what convinced him, not prove to him that figboot isn't real.

If you don't realize this, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

You're the one that seems to be having trouble. And I don't take very kindly to you condescension.

 

[gigantor]

Calm down big boy. I don't like it any more than you do. I'm a skeptic. However, we must be logically honest and the fact is that there are thousands of eyewitness reports.

I agree that most are probably BS, however, you would have to prove all of them to be BS in order to claim that BF doesn't exist. Then the next day, another report will be presented.

So you're trying to prove a negative which is an impossibility, get it?

 

[I am Bigfoot]

I agree that most are probably BS, however, you would have to prove all of them to be BS in order to claim that BF doesn't exist.

NO. NOT. AT. ALL.
I can't even.. where does one begin with that?

So you're trying to prove a negative which is an impossibility, get it?

I'm not trying to prove a negative, get it?

 

[gigantor]

huh? say what?

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 12; address the argument not attack the arguer.

 

[I am Bigfoot]

huh? say what?

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Jesus Christ. Here is a timeline.

OS says there is convincing evidence.
He presented unonvincing evidence he doesn't stand by.
I want the stuff he says he has.
You come along and don't understand a word I say and act like your poor comprehension skills makes you superior.

ETA: So far you have not added anything. Just telling me stop trying to disprove figboot, which is not something I was trying to do. And you continue to condescend.

 

[gigantor]

Again, you are making it a personal affair and not addressing the issue...

So let me ask you again. If you prove that one report is false, does that mean that all other reports are also false?

 

[gigantor]

By the way, it's 3am and I'm tired, so I'm calling it a night. Don't try to claim that I ran off because of your superior intellect.

We'll meet again. Good night!

 

[I am Bigfoot]

Again, you are making it a personal affair and not addressing the issue...

So let me ask you again. If you prove that one report is false, does that mean that all other reports are also false?

No, No, No nonononononononononono.
NO. NO. NO. NO!
I explained that in my longer post that you don't seem to understand a single word of.
The anecdotes he presented apparently don't play an important role in why he is convinced bigfoot is real. I don't personally care (at the moment about) the anecdotes if they're basically non sequiturs. I want to discuss his position with him. I am trying to understand where he is coming from and how he reached that conclusion.

He said he has good evidence but presented evidence even he seems uncompelled by. I want his good evidence and explained why it was pointless to present bad evidence. And you came by to tell me to stop trying to disprove bigfoot and I'm making things personal in a discussion about someone's personal beliefs.

And you are the one acting superior. You cannot possibly be this dense. It just isn't physically possible. You haven't addressed a single thing and whined.

 

[Jodie]

Hi Jodie!

We miss you at the BFF.

Well hello there Gigantor, how are you? Hope you are doing well, tell everyone I said hello.

 

[River]

You are trying to make it a personal argument. Regardless of what he thinks or believes, there are thousands of reports. Basically, you are attempting to prove a negative.

If you don't realize this, let me know and I'll explain it to you.

Perhaps you'd like to chime in with what you feel is any authentic bigfoot evidence. If not, why take this route? If you'd like to defend bigfoot as a real animal and not fantasy, post up what YOU feel is authentic evidence. The very best you can. Lets talk about what convinces YOU.

 

[Jodie]

Calm down big boy. I don't like it any more than you do. I'm a skeptic. However, we must be logically honest and the fact is that there are thousands of eyewitness reports.

I agree that most are probably BS, however, you would have to prove all of them to be BS in order to claim that BF doesn't exist. Then the next day, another report will be presented.

So you're trying to prove a negative which is an impossibility, get it?

Remember when we were working on the database and I asked you about vetting the reports? My issue with that was how do you distinguish the real reports from the BS reports to get strong data.

You can't since there is no criteria for differentiating between the two types. Anything you pull out of the new database will be worthless since the data pulled is only as good as the data that is entered. I don't think it's going to be useful to build a case for circumstantial evidence for the existence of bigfoot or to base any kind of research efforts on unless I missed something. You may not be able to prove a negative but proving positive existence of bigfoot based on reports alone will not work either.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Just dropped in briefly on the BFF and the Ketchum thread is now up to 214 pages. Glanced at the last page and it seems a discussion of a government conspiracy to cover up BF is underway.

If the guvmint is covering up BF, why hasn't Ketchum been diassappeared by the MIB?

 

[DennyT]

The few that I posted, are not very credible on their own of course. But with the other few thousand on the BFRO, i'd say many are real. Some of them are even from our friends on BFF, remember.

1. which are real?
2. do you admit that many reports are clearly inaccurate?

 

[Jodie]

This is my take on it, the "can't prove a negative" is a default excuse for having no evidence. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, just that the evidence is not there.

So back to my primary conflict, what can you do to procure better evidence? Obviously not from the researchers out there, and if they have evidence, why hold it if the primary concern is to prove the existence of the creature?

That gets into individual motivations and unfortunately I don't see a whole lot of genuine motivation to establish the existence of the creature. What I do see is grandstanding with unsubstantiated claims, a pecking order evolving on who has what and how good is it, oh but you can't see it........yada yada.

Proponents are their own worst enemy, skeptics are not the problem here IMO. Genuine motivation would provide genuine results if bigfoot is out there to be found.

 

[DennyT]

Just dropped in briefly on the BFF and the Ketchum thread is now up to 214 pages. Glanced at the last page and it seems a discussion of a government conspiracy to cover up BF is underway.

If the guvmint is covering up BF, why hasn't Ketchum been diassappeared by the MIB?

Ketchum is the latest bigfoot-proof trainwreck, with the touted-but-now-aged Erickson videos apparently consumed in the resulting conflagration. So the footers are quickly trying to move the rubber neckers along..."nothing to see here, keep moving....uhhh, "syence" and 'gubmint' are to blame, yeah, that's it, let's talk about syence and gubmint being to blame for the lack of proof of bigfoot." or "go see Bill Munns thread, he's determined to prove bigfoot is real. He's got cameras."

Oh, and I hear that one of the big cheeses at BFF has a video of two bigfoots grooming each other??? I certainly hope this is not one of those "unsubstantiated claims" he censors. LOL. Oops, forgot, no sense of humor.