Bigfoot

They don't have to. All they have to do is give reasonable reasons why the assertion of Bigfoot is such an extraordinary claim; thus, the complete lack of evidence to support that claim leads to the reasonable conclusion that there's no Bigfeet in the PacNW.They're under no obligation to prove that what they're saying is true about Bigfeet, only that it's a reasonable conclusion from the assertions of Bigfoot proponents like you - which it is.Case closed. For apparently the fifth time you've failed to understand that it's not a fair fight between someone saying Bigfoots exist and someone saying they don't; they don't have to follow the same "rules."Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on those who assert Bigfoot, not those who are skeptical. The only facts I need are your assertions - they're sufficient to substantiate that your claims are extraordinary but your evidence is nonexistent. At this point it's puzzling why you're so completely wrong about what conversation we're having - when you're the one who insisted we have it.

Crash, what don't you get here?How many times do I have to repeat myself? I mean, seriously, what the hell?Here's me from Post 1 (perhaps you've heard of it. It's the 1st post in the thread) But rather than trying "to raise at least a better line of reasoning" you've just REPEATED the piss poor arguments I quoted from the "experts".Jar, Ned, Nator, Zhim, Alglagard have all stepped up to the plate.But you continue to present the same old unprovable arguments that led to this thread in the 1st place.And yes, I know, I'm asking for "a better line of reasoning for why this thing can't exist" which is essentially proving a negative.Hence: But round and round we go. You make outrageous claims then fail to back them up, then declare that I'm the one making these claims.Excellent work. I give you a gold star.

Yes, you are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are.Clearly this will go no further. You can't prove what you claim, you fail to acknowledge that you even made the claims.It's like I'm arguing with a 3 year old.So, I'll have to do the adult thing. I hereby award you 6 gold stars and declare you the winning winner in win town.Happy? Can you take your fingers out of your ears now.

What don't you get? Apparently every salient feature of my arguments has escaped your reading.I'm not saying that what I'm saying about Bigfoot is true, and neither are your experts. How could I hold both the position that Bigfoot fishes in the PacNW at the same time I hold the position that Bigfoot doesn't even exist? It's impossible.What I've been saying all along is that if what you say about Bigfeet is true, then certain other things must be true.I don't need any evidence about Bigfoot to make those arguments - a feature about this conversation that you've fundamentally overlooked. I don't recall where you explained how they were piss-poor - except to erroneously state that they relied on impossible knowledge about Bigfoot, which they don't.They rely on knowlege about claims about Bigfoot, the claims people like you are making - which is very easy knowledge to have, it's sufficient to listen to the fever-mad ravings of Bigfoot proponents like yourself. Then we've addressed your OP, very directly. The problem is that you've fundamentally misunderstood the arguments of the skeptics. They're not arguments based on the qualities of Bigfoots. They're arguments based on claims of Bigfoots that Bigfoot supporters are making.That's why "some reasoning" (yours) doesn't apply - you've fundamentally misunderstood the reasoning. Not surprising, since throughout you've refused to approach this in a reasonable state of mind.

Do you not understand how proof by contradiction works? You're asking me to prove your premise before I disprove it.That's nonsense. I don't have to accept your premises to show that they lead to contradictions. All I have to do is show that if they're true, they would lead to contradictions. Thus, their falsity is established.Your reasoning - if we can even call it that - is that I have to prove your premises true before I can prove them false. How does that make any sense? Even a three year old knows that what you're doing is nonsense. Your entire post is nothing more than a quote mine that evades every substantial point I've made. In the end, though, evasion is all the true believe really has, isn't it?

Crash, I've given you a total of 7 gold stars and declared you the "winningest winner of win town".What more do you want?Extra credit? A scratch and sniff sticker? 5 more minutes at recess?I get the impression that you are willing to keep posting here until you get all the stickers you can get.So let me put your mind at ease.You are very smart, Crash. And a good boy. And even though you the girls in class think you have cooties, it's just because they don't understand you.Hopefully that clicks whatever it is that needs to be clicked back into place.Clearly this thread has deteriorated as everyone else has left it. And so, I will too.Please, go ahead and post your insulting reply. Hell, reply twice. Why not, it's free.

You've just got no capability to approach this with anything but emotion, do you?

quote:

---

And that's my point. If a plane can disappear into the forest, why can't an animal?

---

Becasue it's a plane, with a couple of people who most likely died in the crash or shortly thereafter.You are talking about a population rather than only a couple of individuals, are you not?That population is mobile? Has to eat to live? A population of large primates that lives there as part of the ecosystem and supposedly has done for many years?Come on, you've got to start applying your bullshit detector to your own thinking, Nuggin.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You asserted that there wasn't enough food.
You asserted that all the witnesses were drunk backpackers.
You asserted that the only way to catch fish is with fish hooks.

---

You asserted that Bigfoot exists.Go ahead, provide the evidence.

Nuggin, stop behaving like a petulent baby.I think that Crashfrog pretty much put the debate to bed way back in message 14.

No, I didn't. You are making the exact same mistake that Crash is making.I asserted that the experts can't disprove Bigfoot based on information they don't already have.I have readily and repeatedly said that there is no solid evidence for Bigfoot's existance. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion.Whether or not Bigfoot exists makes no difference on the issue that these so called "experts" are making claims which they can not possibly back up.I might as well say, "There can't be UFO's because the aliens would have enough fuel."How do I know what they use for fuel? Or how much they use? I can't know that. I can't make those sort of claims.

Crashfrog's message is nothing more than a repeatition of the same bullshit that go me to start the thread in the first place.He invents a few "facts" about population size and dietary requirements, then makes some outrageous claims about various animals inability to procure food for themselves.I'll even credit someone else - Quetzal's post 53, with a pretty solid explaination of why Crashfrog, and the "experts" don't get to make up facts and claim they disprove something.I asked for different lines of reasoning. Jar stepped up, as did several others. But Crash has just gone on to repeat the same stuff and in an insulting fashion.If you want to side with him, that's fine. But please do it in emails with him, not in uselessly redundant posts.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

How many times does it have to be repeated before it sinks in? We don't have to establish the existence of Bigfoot to show that the existence of Bigfoot as described by his proponents is contradictory. Like I said, that's not how the proof by contradiction (aka "reducto ad absurdum") works. I don't have to prove that your premises are true in order to show that they lead to absurd conclusions; all I have to do is show that if they were true, they would lead to ridiculous conclusions.It's the simplest proof in logic. It's mind-boggling to me that it appears to be beyond your grasp. Can't you? Even aliens have to live in a universe governed by the laws of physics, and we can determine how much energy it would take to accelerate and decelerate a spaceship of a given weight. If even the most conservative guess of a spaceship's weight is too small to hold the required fuel - even an imaginary fuel with the most liberal energy density assumed - then indeed, we can arrive at a conclusion about their fuel, simply based on what it would be like if the claims of the UFO proponents were true. We don't have to prove them true, we just accept their truth as a premise and then show how that leads to a contradiction.Proof by contradiction. It doesn't rely on impossible knowledge; it just relies on what the proponents are saying. And it's puzzling to just about everybody why you're reacting with such vitriol to such an obvious point. Why is this such an emotional issue for you?

What about your invention of the facts? Remember when you responded to the claim that there are no primates known to live in the wilderness of the PacNW by reminding us of the Native American tribes of the NW?Yeah, great - except that those people were fishers who lived coastally, not in the mountain wildernesses. At any time that they did inhabit those areas it was on an itinerant basis.Of course, you had no response to that correction, because you're not proceeding in this debate with your rational mind, but rather from your deep-seated faith in Bigfoot.

So far, all we've seen is your claims that "experts" are making claims. You need to show us where "experts" are claiming that Bigfoot "can't" exist.And asserting that you saw it on a TV show doesn't count.Edited by Ringo, : Inserted a missing word: TV "show".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC