Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? There are many ways to produce deep tracks in hard soil without your imaginary biped, in fact where are these tracks taht you speak of?
Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? There are many ways to produce deep tracks in hard soil without your imaginary biped, in fact where are these tracks taht you speak of?
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
And only people with 18" feet can fake 18" tracks. And only really really tall people can clean chimneys.....you know, because short people can't reach that high.True, but all of them i beg to differ on. Try reading reports and pictures of tracks at the depth of a grizzly tracks, in an area where grizzlies dont live.
Take the Greys harbor cast. Definitely NOT A BEAR
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Links, evidence, explanations - what's so difficult about this?
I don't think the GH cast is a bear. So what?
Please provide an explanation to how the Grey Harbor cast has been ruled out as a hoax.
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads/monthly_04_2008/post-595-1209259313_thumb.jpg
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=22562
Don't even think of responding with a "so you're saying" blurb.
Last edited:
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
I'm not an expert on tracks, but seems to me the bigfoot that left the tracks in this trackway photo sure had some short legs. Not much of a stride length at all, IMHO. But again, I'm no expert on tracks.
They are incredibly deep, and show toe flexation. Please tell me how sasquatch is ruled out?
desertyeti
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 835
What crap? Im allowed to ask kitz how bigfoot is ruled out as the creator of those tracks
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Don't give me crap. This is the JREF. Do you think you pull that garbage here? What kinda of cheap a simp do you think I am. Like I'm gonna forget the burden of proof and jump through your hoops like a fool.
DON'T BE AN ASS. SHOW ME THEY ARE INCREDIBLY DEEP AND SHOW TOE FLEXATION. THEN EXPLAIN HOW A HOAX WAS RULED OUT. LINKS, EVIDENCE, EXPLANATIONS. NOT DIFFICULT.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Bigfoot enthusiasts understand the burden of proof like a YECer understands evolution.
Cleon
King of the Pod People
You don't understand how this works. It's the other way around.
To show that they are, in fact, Bigfoot footprints, you have to rule the other possibilities out. That's the whole point--the existence of the footprints is supposed to show that Bigfoot exists, right? If you assume from the outset that Bigfoot made the prints, you're engaging in circular reasoning--the prints show Bigfoot exists, and the prints are made by Bigfoot because Bigfoot exists.
It's not up to us to "rule Bigfoot out." It's up to you to show that the most likely source of the tracks is, in fact, a Sasquatch.
xblade
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 464
Besides the most obvious reason?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
What gets me is the way makaya (and a few others) are so gung-ho on this idea that skeptics have some anti-Bigfoot ideology, and we're just absolutely terrified of being wrong.
**** NO!
The discovery of an extant hominid species like Bigfoot would be a huge scientific discovery, and I for one would love to be around when a discovery like that is made. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if Bigfoot is discovered to be real, I will throw a giant kegger, and you'll have a tough time wiping the smile off my face. The idea alone that a species so large could coexist right under our noses and still remain hidden fascinates me no end.
But, alas, when all's said and done, it's a question of evidence. Where is the evidence?
Bigfoot proponents can't seem to agree on Bigfoot's size, shape, what they look like, where they live, or anything, really. The only thing they once agreed on is that Bigfoot is bipedal, and even then when that ridiculous bear image from PA came around, they started throwing around bizarre "theories" that younger Bigfeet were quadrapedal or knuckle-walkers.
So we're not even given a clear, reasonable hypothesis as to what Bigfoot looks like, much less any clear evidence beyond:
The fact that the above evidence is shaky doesn't mean, necessarily, that Bigfoot isn't real, but if the Footers want to convince people, they're going to have to do a lot better.
I'm waiting. Convince me. Show me there's something out there. Give me some evidence that can't be chalked up to a hoax or a mistake. Believe me, I'd love to see it.
**** NO!
The discovery of an extant hominid species like Bigfoot would be a huge scientific discovery, and I for one would love to be around when a discovery like that is made. I've said it before and I'll say it again; if Bigfoot is discovered to be real, I will throw a giant kegger, and you'll have a tough time wiping the smile off my face. The idea alone that a species so large could coexist right under our noses and still remain hidden fascinates me no end.
But, alas, when all's said and done, it's a question of evidence. Where is the evidence?
Bigfoot proponents can't seem to agree on Bigfoot's size, shape, what they look like, where they live, or anything, really. The only thing they once agreed on is that Bigfoot is bipedal, and even then when that ridiculous bear image from PA came around, they started throwing around bizarre "theories" that younger Bigfeet were quadrapedal or knuckle-walkers.
So we're not even given a clear, reasonable hypothesis as to what Bigfoot looks like, much less any clear evidence beyond:
- Footprints, which are easily faked, and in many cases, have been shown conclusively to have been faked--even by Ray Wallace, the guy who started the whole thing in the first place.
- Fuzzy photos, which never seem to show the same sort of critter.
- Eyewitnesses, who are susceptible to misidentification, misremembering, etc., down to just downright lying.
- The PGF, which might very well be just a guy in a suit.
The fact that the above evidence is shaky doesn't mean, necessarily, that Bigfoot isn't real, but if the Footers want to convince people, they're going to have to do a lot better.
I'm waiting. Convince me. Show me there's something out there. Give me some evidence that can't be chalked up to a hoax or a mistake. Believe me, I'd love to see it.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I smell burnt toast. No, wait! I'm getting a feeling...
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Excuse me, but could you please tell me how the above sentence relates to my post, reproduced below, which you were supposed to be answering?
I fail to see how this equates, relates or results in "dismissing out of hand" the tracks...Correa Neto said:
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Time for another play of the Makaya theme song kankei nai (translation - "it's unrelated")
AYAYAYA!!!
AYAYAYA!!!
Kitz, when i asked you the valid question "tell me why it cant be created by a bf" after you posted "explain how it cant be a hoax"
For pete sakes, The moon landings were not IMPOSSIBLE to fake (I believe we did land on the moon) but why is it accepted as 100% proof, which scientists say no one could possibly fake the moon landings.