• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

I'm going to take a wild guess: Because this side needs people with critical thinking skills and intellectual honesty?
 
Right. That way of thinking (or not thinking) just doesn't fly for Bigfoot skeptics posting on the web.
 
It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.
Click to expand...

We've established that there can be no denialism about sasquatch, since the scientific consensus is that there is no such thing.

What available evidence? The anecdotes? The ones that don't jive with the PGF?
 
As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.
Click to expand...

As far as you know... Well, you should know more. Science definitely agrees there's no bigfoot.


Keep dreaming. No body will be brought in, since there is no such thing.

And again, even that shouldn't be a victory for you. Given the evidence (there is none), the correct conclusion at this time is that there is no bigfoot, regardless of the future.
 
Last edited:
Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives.

The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Just because something isn't listed, doesn't mean there is a negative consensus on it. Remember, science doesn't focus on negatives.

The default is that Bigfoot isn't known to exist. That same default applies to anything else that's unknown.
Click to expand...

This is beyond wrong. You are now basically saying that science does not have a consensus on leprechauns. Get real. (This is the intellectual honesty part I was talking about.)
 
OntarioSquatch said:
As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.
Click to expand...
Science doesn't focus on mermaids, dragons, unicorns, menehunes either. Do you know why?
I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.
Click to expand...
None to be had. Anywhere.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
It's not possible for me to turn into a Bigfoot denialist. Becoming a denialist/ex-proponent requires a certain set of thinking patterns that I just don't have. It also requires one to be unsure of the existence of Sasquatch and to be disappointed with the available evidence, which I'm not.
Click to expand...
As had been pointed out, this is a good thing.
 
There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely,
Click to expand...
Trolling word games. I don't know for sure that a monkey won't fly out of my butt today, so . . .

OntarioSquatch said:
Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence,
Click to expand...
It's not controversial if evidence for the thing in question has been sought but not found. This is the case for bigfoot, in which bigfooters have been trying to prove its existence for at least the past 50 years, and the whole of North American settlement and exploration has turned up thousands of species, none of which are bigfoot. Don't even get me started on the absence of such a creature from the fossil record . . .

Yes, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no such thing as bigfoot. (Recall that I am a scientist who studies wild animals.)
 
OntarioSquatch said:
There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed. Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.
Click to expand...

There are not endless possibilities. There are patterns and ecological rules. Possibilities should be reasonable. Sasquatch makes no sense in his alleged environment.

The scientific method is all we have to evaluate claims. Other standards are useless and can be dismissed summarily.

Also, the anecdotes don't jive with the PGF. Believing either is ludicrous. There is no word strong enough to qualify the inanity of believing both.
 
People can sometimes be afraid of what they love. It's one of those irrational things that exists in the human psyche.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
There's almost endless possibilities and even though most of them are unlikely, they're still possibilities and they can't be dismissed.
Click to expand...
Footie can be dismissed. It has been, in fact.
Even if one accepts the controversial idea that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, the reality is that there's still no way to know for sure without positive proof of existence. It's worth mentioning that the standard for scientific proof can be different from people's own standards.
Click to expand...
The absence of evidence for a biological entity that would necessarily leave loads of it is indeed evidence of absence. This has been explained to you on several threads, including this one.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.
Click to expand...

Until that time, the default position should be disbelief.

Just the same as if we were dealing with fairies, chupacabra, werewolves, unicorns, mermaids, angels, fire-breathing dragons, God, gremlins, thunderbirds, Ogopogo, Nessie, or vampires.

RayG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom