IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bigfoot

Reply
Old 24th June 2009, 11:23 AM   #321
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
I am sensing this is going to be a while. You'd think yes/no questions wouldn't be so hard to answer...
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2009, 11:58 AM   #322
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
My answers are going to be more than just simple 'Yes's' or 'No's.

But I should have time later tonight, to get to them.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2009, 05:16 PM   #323
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
My answers are going to be more than just simple 'Yes's' or 'No's.

But I should have time later tonight, to get to them.
OK, I hope so. BTW, I trust the answers will actually have a yes/no. You know, because if they didn't, this quote would probably come back again:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
I asked you a very simple question....and you appear to be afraid to answer it with a very simple yes or no.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2009, 09:53 PM   #324
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
No, it's not unreasonable at all. I'd love to see proof of the beast, myself.
So why incessantly present it as being an unreasonable position?

Is it unreasonable to think Bigfoot doesn't exist based on the lack of proof or reliable evidence?

Well, first, I'll re-word your question....into two, more Specific questions.


First....in the 'definite' sense...

Quote:
Is it unreasonable to think Bigfoot definitely doesn't exist based on the lack of proof or reliable evidence?


Yes...it's unreasonable to say that Bigfoot definitely does not exist.....because there isn't any 'Proof' of that proposition/conclusion.

To conclude that....with 100% certainty....we would need evidence which rises to the level of 'Proof'.

(This is true for propositions which are 'plausible', only. For the 'implausible'....proof is not needed.)



And then, in the 'indefinite' sense...

Quote:
Is it unreasonable to think Bigfoot may not exist based on the lack of proof or reliable evidence?




No, it's not unreasonable to think that Bigfoot may not exist......because there isn't 'proof' of it's existence.

Worded differently....('inverted')....it IS reasonable to think that Bigfoot may not exist....since we do not have 'Proof' of it's existence.



In basic principle...(regarding the concept of 'evidence')....if a given piece of evidence carries a certain amount of 'weight'....say, as one example, a 70% probability of the proposition being true.....that would mean there is reason to think the proposition may be true, while, at the same time...it also means there is reason to think the proposition may not be true.


All that can be 'concluded' from the piece of evidence is simply an estimation of odds.

Even a very strong piece of evidence...something which (allegedly) qualifies as "reliable evidence" still only leaves us with 'odds', or 'chances' of the proposition being true.....not a definite truth.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 02:42 AM   #325
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Mod WarningAm I going to have to post this warning in every bigfoot thread before you all get the message? Stop the bickering, personal attacks and off topic nonsense or suspensions and bans will follow.
Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Cuddles
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2009, 04:34 AM   #326
makaya325
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Yes...it's unreasonable to say that Bigfoot definitely does not exist.....because there isn't any 'Proof' of that proposition/conclusion.

Answer this Sweaty: Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of a population of 9ft tall, smelly, loud apes living in all 50 states, sometimes in populated areas, going undetected, unfound, and leaving an impact on the food chain smaller than a microbe?

Or....

Can bigfoot simply be a creation of human nature?

Pick one.
makaya325 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2009, 12:58 AM   #327
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Cuddles, I'm not sure if my posts are coming across as part of the bickering. If they are, I apologize but I would like to resolve this point of contention about what is and isn't unreasonable considering that Sweaty so often frames skeptics as being unreasonable regarding Bigfoot evidence such as the MDF.

Sweaty, please note I am going to change a single word and highlight it in green to make a specific, self-evident point:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
Yes...it's unreasonable to say that Reptoids definitely do not exist.....because there isn't any 'Proof' of that proposition/conclusion.

To conclude that....with 100% certainty....we would need evidence which rises to the level of 'Proof'.

(This is true for propositions which are 'plausible', only. For the 'implausible'....proof is not needed.)
Note that you removed reliable evidence from your response and spoke only about proof. Again you try and twist things to terms of absolutes. You make the addendum that the above answer is true only for plausible propositions. The proposition that a species of gargantuan wood ape up to 9 x 6 ft which would be one of if not the single largest land mammal species in North America is existing in sufficient numbers to maintain a population all across North America in places like Whitehall and Valatie, NY, Salt Fork State Park, OH, and complete surrounded by cities and farmland between Virginia and North Carolina undiscovered by science is as about absurd as things can get. I think people who can not wrap their minds around that concept and are too close-minded to to think about the reality of the proposition have an extremely warped sense of what constitutes "implausible".

Quote:
In basic principle...(regarding the concept of 'evidence')....if a given piece of evidence carries a certain amount of 'weight'....say, as one example, a 70% probability of the proposition being true.....that would mean there is reason to think the proposition may be true, while, at the same time...it also means there is reason to think the proposition may not be true.


All that can be 'concluded' from the piece of evidence is simply an estimation of odds.

Even a very strong piece of evidence...something which (allegedly) qualifies as "reliable evidence" still only leaves us with 'odds', or 'chances' of the proposition being true.....not a definite truth.
I see you are playing with numbers again. Tell us, Sweaty, since you have chosen 70% as a number being sufficient to prescribe to a given proposition, what percentage should we allow for the evidence for Bigfoot and how did you arrive at that figure?

Also, yes, if we had an unambiguous video of a creature that looks exactly as what we are told Bigfoot looks and has a clear provenance, it does not rule out the possibility that what we are seeing is not in fact a real Bigfoot. There is a chance however small that it might not be Bigfoot. The point however is that given the right circumstances it becomes very difficult to explain what we are seeing without Bigfoot in fact existing. Thus we are able to say that the evidence is reliable and of high quality in addressing the question about whether or not Bigfoot exists. The thing is that you have nothing that comes even close to that. The PGF is not that. The MDF is certainly not that. So with the lack of a type specimen (proof), unambigious imagery, matching DNA samples of a higher unidentified primate, or something else in the way of reliable evidence, it is absolutely fair for the average person to conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist.

More importantly, when you lie about the JREF being a place where nothing means anything and we will accept only proof in the form of a body on a slab you are willfully being dishonest and failing to be forthright about the nature of the evidence submitted for Bigfoot. Forget proof, just give us some reliable evidence. Hair, blood, or feces with matching DNA samples - they do this for real primates like chimps, why not Bigfoot? Unambiguous video with clear provenance - they have this for great big mammals that live in the most remote jungles and number less than 60 in population, why not Bigfoot? You need to stop lying about the reality of the situation. We will gladly accept high quality evidence for Bigfoot that doesn't necessarily qualify as proof. You need to get over and stop whining about the fact all you believers of Bigfoot have brought to the table is a bunch of weak coffee. It will never combine to be strong coffee so grow some beans and go get some.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2009, 10:14 AM   #328
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post


Note that you removed reliable evidence from your response and spoke only about proof.

Again you try and twist things to terms of absolutes.


You are the one twisting things, kitty.

I spoke about both 'absolutes'...('proof')......and 'gray-areas'...('probabilities').....in an effort to explain as clearly, and logically as possible what my thoughts are concerning this question you asked me...


kitakaze wrote:
Quote:
Is it unreasonable to think Bigfoot doesn't exist based on the lack of proof or reliable evidence?

My post/explanation covered the entire spectrum of "evidence".....from the two extremes of 'proof' and 'nothing'....to everything in-between....the very large 'gray area' of 'probabilities'.
I didn't leave out "reliable" evidence, because whatever "reliable evidence" actually is....it's contained within that entire spectrum I covered.



I have no interest in continuing to deal with your never-ending BS, kitty.

What I'll do instead of wasting my time discussing anything with you....is simply write a more thorough explanation of what my thoughts are, concerning the concept of 'evidence'.....and then, after that, you can have yourself a field-day taking another lengthy dump all over it.




BTW.....thanks for your latest screw-up.... ...concerning your beloved "reliable evidence" category.


You wrote this, back on the 19th:

Quote:
You of course know full well that I keep deflating this lie of yours by specifically and explicity referring to and describing things which are not proof of Bigfoot but would be reliable or high quality evidence that would be very hard to account for without a species of colossal wood ape in fact existing in North America. Difficult, yes - but by no means impossible.
Just simply asking for a decent unambiguous video...

The definition of 'unambiguous':

Quote:
un·am·big·u·ous (ŭn'ām-bĭg'yōō-əs)
adj. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear.

"No uncertainty"....with the emphasis on NO UNCERTAINTY......
... is... CERTAINTY .....a.k.a.... PROOF......


Yet again, kitty, you have confused "reliable evidence" with "proof"...........
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2009, 12:04 PM   #329
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
What reliable evidence, with regard to Bigfoot , are you referring to ?
__________________
Maybe later....
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2009, 08:13 AM   #330
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
What reliable evidence, with regard to Bigfoot , are you referring to ?


What do you mean by "reliable"?

What strength would a piece of "reliable" evidence carry?


One thing that I can "reliably" say about one piece of Bigfoot evidence.....is that neither you, nor anyone else, will ever be able to replicate....with a padded suit-leg.....that 'pop-up' bulge on Patty's thigh.
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2009, 11:14 AM   #331
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 19,277
re⋅li⋅a⋅ble
  Pronunciation [ri-lahy-uh-buhl]
–adjective
that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information.


What can I say Sweety ?
Can't do the pop-up - must mean Patty is a real Bigfoot.. ( With a butt she borrowed from Gemora .... )
__________________
Maybe later....

Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 29th June 2009 at 12:37 PM. Reason: Close to deadline
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2009, 11:27 AM   #332
Correa Neto
Philosopher
 
Correa Neto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,548
Look! Greg is saying Patty is the Gemora suit!!!!!

Scoffic!!!

Sorry, can't help myself. It's been getting harder and harder to take bigfootery seriously these days...
__________________
Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me:
Together we can find the cure
Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…
Correa Neto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2009, 02:55 AM   #333
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
What do you mean by "reliable"?

What strength would a piece of "reliable" evidence carry?
Ballzheimers acting up again? Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=26
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2009, 04:10 AM   #334
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
You are the one twisting things, kitty.

I spoke about both 'absolutes'...('proof')......and 'gray-areas'...('probabilities').....in an effort to explain as clearly, and logically as possible what my thoughts are concerning this question you asked me...

My post/explanation covered the entire spectrum of "evidence".....from the two extremes of 'proof' and 'nothing'....to everything in-between....the very large 'gray area' of 'probabilities'.
I didn't leave out "reliable" evidence, because whatever "reliable evidence" actually is....it's contained within that entire spectrum I covered.

I have no interest in continuing to deal with your never-ending BS, kitty.

What I'll do instead of wasting my time discussing anything with you....is simply write a more thorough explanation of what my thoughts are, concerning the concept of 'evidence'.....and then, after that, you can have yourself a field-day taking another lengthy dump all over it.

BTW.....thanks for your latest screw-up.... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Jefferson1.gif ...concerning your beloved "reliable evidence" category.

You wrote this, back on the 19th:

The definition of 'unambiguous':

No uncertainty"....with the emphasis on NO UNCERTAINTY......
... is... CERTAINTY .....a.k.a.... PROOF......http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Jefferson1.gif

Yet again, kitty, you have confused "reliable evidence" with "proof"........... http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Jefferson1.gif http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w...Jefferson1.gif
Quibbles and bits.

Sweaty, you lapsing somewhat. I don't think that post had enough George and Helen Jefferson and giant text. You said that it was unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist. You said that doing so was true for something which is plausible. You are ignoring that Bigfoot existing across North America in places like Valatie and Whitehall New York is not anywhere in plausibility's neighbourhood. That's on the other side of the tracks in La La Land.

Now you are quibbling about unambiguous video. Go look at the OP for the thread on unambiguous video and Bigfoot. Look at any of those videos. Look at the post you were responding to. An unambiguous video does not necessarily equate proof. However unlikely, it could have been an elaborate hoax.
Hoaxing is rampant in Bigfootery. There's oodles of it. The Georgia hoax showed that there's a lot of money to be made in playing off of the gullibility and desires of Bigfoot fanatics. Look at the way you responded when The Professor claimed to have seen Bigfoot. You responded exactly the way he wanted you to. He easily manipulated your will to believe. But maybe he was telling the truth, right, Sweaty? Yeah, and he just lies about everything else.

Imagine you see a video for Bigfoot along the lines of the nighttime game cam video I posted of the world's rarest large animal, the Javan rhino.

It's like, OK, right. I'm seeing forest aaaand HOLY $#!% there's Bigfoot! It's walking around. It's... OK, it's hitting a tree with a stick. Right, right, now it's mimicking an owl. Could that be a hoax? It depends on the video. If it's a shaky bit of 40 year old film showing what looks just like a man in a suit in a part of the world that has been covered with game cams an track plates for many years now and no better evidence, that's ambiguous. If it's a video of a Bigfoot over by a tree eating a deer liver and having a poop, that's pretty hard to fake but certainly not impossible. The video is unambiguous in showing what appears to be Bigfoot but the chance for hoaxing remains to a certain degree depending on the circumstances. That's why unambiguous video is not necessarily either reliable evidence or proof. It could be very persuasive evidence but if we're talking about proof, we're talking about a body. Science is going to need a body to examine and for one that you think lives across the continent, it should not be such a hard thing. A video could lead to proof of Bigfoot. A video could lead to a Bigfoot. Let's say the video had clear provenance. Let say the video was taken by some wildlife biologists who would lose their careers for pulling a hoax. Let's say we could go to where that video evidence was taken and collect DNA from scat and the animal the creature preyed upon. That video will have become proof, if we can verify what it showed. Without things like that it's not proof nor reliable evidence.

You are simply dithering and trying to obfuscate the fact that there is absolutely no good evidence for Bigfoot. That is your specialty. It's the actions of a desperate fanatic. Go ahead and expand your thoughts on evidence in general but don't do it in this MDF thread. Do it in the thread we have for your failure of comprehending the difference between reliable evidence and proof. There I will dismantle the inevitably convoluted reasoning you use.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2009, 09:31 AM   #335
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
 
SweatyYeti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,919
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
re⋅li⋅a⋅ble
  Pronunciation [ri-lahy-uh-buhl]
–adjective
that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information.


What can I say Sweety ?


Can't do the pop-up - must mean Patty is a real Bigfoot..

( With a butt she borrowed from Gemora .... )


That's right you can't..............Greggy-Poo.


Maybe there's a reason for that ..
__________________
The wisdom of Diogenes....
"So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

tyr13: "There is no proof of bigfoot so there is no proof that bigfoot isn't a bear."

Last edited by SweatyYeti; 1st July 2009 at 09:33 AM.
SweatyYeti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2009, 09:35 PM   #336
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti View Post
That's right you can't..............Greggy-Poo.


Maybe there's a reason for that ..
That's right. You can't obfuscate the role of reliable evidence regarding Bigfoot or produce any evidence of Bigfoot that is high quality or has any siginificant weight..............Sweaty-Poo.


Maybe there's a reason for that ..
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 09:31 PM   #337
Tyinhell
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Sweaty, your fervent desire to believe is staggering. Just watching the way your basic common sense is disarmed by this is comical. They see someone running around up on the hill which they think is weird. The concept of it being a Bigfoot is like a joke to them that they are entertaining together in a jovial manner after having some alcohol. You're so addled by footer logic that you can't hear the context in which "we could make a million bucks" is said followed by snickering. Your mind seems to have decided to blot out the part where they say...

"that's that wall tent up there. Probably where he's going to."

*facepalm*

I guess the little Bigfoot with baby was running to hide in the tent.

You decided long ago that the MDF is a real little Bigfoot carrying around a littler Bigfoot and further encouraged by your communication with the Bigfoot enthralled grampa who was never there and encouraged by his family to think they really might have seen a Bigfoot. You see Bigfoot because you're a fanatic and your head is broken from absorbing anything contrary to your desperate belief.



You mean that same kid who also says...

"'kay, I'm going up there."

"that's not a Bigfoot"



Maybe he wanted to go check out the white boy.
Sorry for bringing this discussion to light again but Kitikaze this has got to be the absolute best, most common sense post ever written regarding the commentary that goes with this video.

If I recall, some of those phrases were never brought up in the discussions of this video on the BFF and after listening to it many times myself I never caught on to the most damning ones either.

Like this one..

"that's that wall tent up there. Probably where he's going to."

....and this one.

"'kay, I'm going up there."


You laid it out beautifully in response to Sweaty's posts.

It should be pinned somewhere and referred to whenever anyone else tries to use the commentary to claim Pates and co. were even remotley thinking they were seeing and filming a real Bigfoot.

BTW, there were pictures posted of the wall tent beyond the woods line in one of the threads and without knowledge of the remark "that's that wall tent up there" some posters were saying that was what it looked like but Rick Noll insisted it was a metal gate.....
Tyinhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2009, 09:52 PM   #338
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sapporo ichiban!
Posts: 9,272
Originally Posted by Tyinhell View Post
You laid it out beautifully in response to Sweaty's posts.

It should be pinned somewhere and referred to whenever anyone else tries to use the commentary to claim Pates and co. were even remotley thinking they were seeing and filming a real Bigfoot.
Thank you, Ty.

Unfortunately, bringing any of this up simply causes a clunking sound and smoke to emanate from Sweaty's head. Sweaty will prattle on about what ol' Grampa Pate said and won't be able to wrap his Bigfoot-addled mind around the idea that the Pates would encourage Gramps to think they saw a real live samsquanch. Sweaty has to be one of the last poor, desperate fanatics who thinks the MDF is Bigfoot. You know it's bad when you're clinging to something that induces two-handed facepalms in the rest of Bigfootery.

Quote:
BTW, there were pictures posted of the wall tent beyond the woods line in one of the threads and without knowledge of the remark "that's that wall tent up there" some posters were saying that was what it looked like but Rick Noll insisted it was a metal gate.....
If you find these again, please, please, please post them or share a link here. I would love to see those.

Sweaty, on the other hand...
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 12:05 AM   #339
Tyinhell
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by kitakaze View Post
Thank you, Ty.

If you find these again, please, please, please post them or share a link here. I would love to see those.
Your welcome Kit, just calling it how I see it...

My 15th post ! On the next one I can post pictures and links ! Woo Hoo !
Tyinhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2009, 12:21 AM   #340
Tyinhell
Student
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16
I found this one in one of my folders Kit that I took a few years ago from a thread but I can't remember which specific thread it was.

The labeling is not mine.

Tyinhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.