It looks like this thread is coming to an end so I'm going to address the distortions that keep getting thrown in. When people claim that the moon landing was a hoax, the two most common fallacies are Argument From Ignorance and Argument From Incredulity. If you look at the materials from even so-called experts like Kaysing, Marcus Allen, and Sibrell, most of their arguments are the same. If they don't understand it, it couldn't have happened. The argument from incredulity is related since a lot of their disbelief comes from not understanding technical aspects of the space program. However, some of the arguments are profoundly nonsensical such as using the data from Explorer 1 and 2 to prove the existence of the Van Allen Belts; and then disregarding the data from Explorer 1 and 2 to claim that they are impassable. It is not unusual for moon hoax enthusiasts to be profoundly ignorant of physics, radiation, radio communication, history, and engineering.
Bigfoot arguments tend to have a similar lack of understanding of science. It is not unusual for bigfoot enthusiasts to have a profound ignorance of biology, zoology, wildlife research, statistical methodology, and scientific practices in general. Moon hoax enthusiasts typically use the Nirvana Fallacy where evidence for a moon landing has to be absolutely perfect or it is rejected. Bigfoot enthusiasts use the related fallacy of Shifting The Burden of Proof where it is suggested that bigfoot must exist unless it can be absolutely disproved. Both groups engage in Cherry Picking with MHEs looking for any flaw in evidence and BFEs looking for any scrap of proof. Probably the most common BFE fallacy is trying to group unrelated evidence as though the total adds up to more proof than each insignificant piece alone.
No further releases will occur until I have a body or part.
As I explained before, a body or DNA is
not necessary to prove the existence of an unknown organism. The professional zoological journals would accept an article about an undiscovered animal in North America based on normal scientific investigation. What you are doing is creating an argument where you suggest that the standards of proof are impossibly high. This is not the case.
You and the others here like to dig up my personal background and make "that" the discussion instead of concentrating on the flaws in your own logic. I think that's called "diversion" and some possess a good ability for "spin" here as well.
The argument you are suggesting is something like this:
"If I'm telling the truth then bigfoot must be real. Bigfoot can only be fake if I'm lying so you have to assume that I'm lying."
This is not correct. Your honesty has no effect on the existence of bigfoot. You don't feed them; you don't raise them; and you aren't setting up a preserve for them so even if bigfoot was a real animal you would have no influence on them. The dearth of genuine evidence for bigfoot remains whether you lie or you don't.
It's funny though as I've always encouraged everyone to remain skeptical. I only discourage the argument of "impossible" and of course the lazy man's argument of "denial" as they relate to Bigfoot. Those two have very little to do with critical thinking. The only logical argument is "what determines possibility".
Bigfoot is not a philosophical concept and cannot be proved or disproved using only logical assertions. I am not at all skeptical of bigfoot for the simple reason that I can't be skeptical of nothing. The level of evidence would have to be raised considerably to have something to be skeptical of.
Chris B.
