Farmer sees group of 5 Bigfoot in his orchard

#21
(May 4, 2018 07:32 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Bullshit you can't. We see the huge footprints and the dark hairy figure behind the branches that eventually darts away. Plus the eyewitness account of the boy. Compelling evidence of Bigfoot that cannot be debunked.

Only to pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers like yourself.
Any supposed bigfoot tracks that are both clear AND walk one foot in front of the other?
Or just indistinct bear tracks:

[Image: Grizzly-bear-tracks-NPS.jpg]


But then, we've still never matched such footprints to an actual bigfoot, so there's no corroboration of their source.
And again, you ignore all the scientific research proving the unreliable nature of eyewitnesses.
But blind faith often does require denying scientific fact. Rolleyes
Reply
#22
Quote:Or just indistinct bear tracks

LOL! You are one piss poor tracker if you can't tell a four-legged track from a bipedal track. Plus, bear tracks are very distinctive. They look like paws, not feet. Not to mention they actually see a bipedal figure in the branches and no bear at all. Amazing evidence for all to see!


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPNdWByPkhAZxv5Y0qijN...X06iIlPQPQ]
Reply
#23
Amazing evidence for pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers.

The footprints are not consistent (which might actually be the result of a quadruped stepping in its own forefoot tracks), and even in the only "raw" footage I could find, the figure just pops in suddenly, betraying an edit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHkFCFnc7J4
Reply
#24
(May 4, 2018 08:21 PM)Syne Wrote: Amazing evidence for pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers.

The footprints are not consistent (which might actually be the result of a quadruped stepping in its own forefoot tracks), and even in the only "raw" footage I could find, the figure just pops in suddenly, betraying an edit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHkFCFnc7J4

Yeah..but as I said the footprints lead up to a hairy bipedal figure standing behind the branches. No bear in sight. So they're obviously not bear tracks.

Quote:Amazing evidence for pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers.

No..amazing evidence for anyone with no agenda of trying to disprove the existence of Bigfoot. Just people innocently open to the possibility. You are the fanatical dogmatist. You are pushing your belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. As if you could magically know such a thing. It's an article of faith for you. I otoh go by the evidence. The video, the eyewitness account, and the footprints. That is what science does. It goes by the empiricle evidence. It is not driven by articles of faith.
Reply
#25
(May 4, 2018 08:24 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
(May 4, 2018 08:21 PM)Syne Wrote: Amazing evidence for pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers.

The footprints are not consistent (which might actually be the result of a quadruped stepping in its own forefoot tracks), and even in the only "raw" footage I could find, the figure just pops in suddenly, betraying an edit.

Yeah..but as I said the footprints lead up to a hairy bipedal figure standing behind the branches. No bear in sight. So they're obviously not bear tracks.
What they actually look like is one person hopping with both feet. You can even see two distinct shoe toes in many of them.
Or is that just a special, two-toed variant of bigfoot? Rolleyes
Again, looks like a guy in a ghillie suit or fur.
The rational possibilities just far outnumber some elusive creature completely unknown to science.
Quote:
Quote:Amazing evidence for pseudo-religious, dogmatic true-believers.

No..amazing evidence for anyone with no agenda of trying to prove the non-existence of Bigfoot. Just people innocently open to the possibility. You are the fanatical dogmatist. You are pushing your belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. As if you could magically know such a thing. It's an article of faith for you. I otoh go by the evidence. The video, the eyewitness account, and the footprints. That is what science does. It goes by the empiricle evidence. It is not driven by articles of faith.

No need to try to prove a nonexistence. Nonexistence is the null hypothesis (default assumption without compelling evidence), otherwise you'd have to prove the nonexistence of pink unicorns and one-eyed purple people eaters. Nothing magical about not believing in things without compelling evidence, but it is blind faith to do so. The burden of a claim, of a hitherto unknown species, rests with the claimant. As soon as someone kills or traps a bigfoot (or even remains), for others to examine, I'll be happy to agree with you. That, by definition, isn't dogmatic, because I am open to having my mind changed. On the other hand, there is no amount of evidence that could possibly persuade you they don't exist, which is dogmatic. Seriously, learn what the words you use mean.

Science goes by verifiable evidence, as there are a host of scientific "discoveries" every year that turn out to be duds when others attempt to replicate them. Your use of "empirical" is expressly devoid of science, as scientific empiricism emphasizes verifiability and experimentation. Again, learn what the words you use mean.
Reply
#26
Quote:What they actually look like is one person hopping with both feet. You can even see two distinct shoe toes in many of them.
Or is that just a special, two-toed variant of bigfoot? Rolleyes
Again, looks like a guy in a ghillie suit or fur.

Aww yes...the hopping guy in a fur suit out in the Russian woods. Do you even know what it's like to trudge thru snow? And what happened to the bear theory? I guess any old shit explanation will do over an actual Bigfoot.

Quote:No need to try to prove a nonexistence. Nonexistence is the null hypothesis (default assumption without compelling evidence),

No it isn't. The null hypothesis of science is that we don't know either way if a Bigfoot exists or not. Agnosticism is the null hypothesis, stripped of assumptions either way and totally open to the dictates of the evidence itself.

Quote:Science goes by verifiable evidence,

Right...as in verified accounts of thousands of other sightings of Bigfoot in Russia, as in the verifying eyewitness accounts by 3 people, and as in the verifying footprints filmed on the camera. This is compelling evidence for Bigfoot, a creature that has been proven to exist thousands of times by thousands of accounts and footprints. To deny it is only to expose a slavish devotion to anti-anomalism--the belief that anomalous phenomena cannot exist. Which is basically an article of faith, since there can never be evidence for the non-existence of anomalous phenomena. The video speaks for itself...bipedal footprints leading up to a bipedal furred figure in the branches that suddenly darts away. This is compelling evidence. And I'm more convinced than ever of the reality of Bigfoot as a result.
Reply
#27
(May 4, 2018 09:15 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:What they actually look like is one person hopping with both feet. You can even see two distinct shoe toes in many of them.
Or is that just a special, two-toed variant of bigfoot?  Rolleyes
Again, looks like a guy in a ghillie suit or fur.

Aww yes...the hopping guy in a fur suit out in the Russian woods. Do you even know what it's like to trudge thru snow? And what happened to the bear theory? I guess any old shit explanation will do over an actual Bigfoot.
I do know what it's like to walk in snow, which is why the irregularity makes sense.
The point is that there are many rational explanations that would need to be systematically eliminated before accepting a farfetched one on such little verifiable evidence.
Rational people don't just leap to "it's the Easter Bunny!" as their first explanation of unidentified creatures.
Quote:
Quote:No need to try to prove a nonexistence. Nonexistence is the null hypothesis (default assumption without compelling evidence),

No it isn't. The null hypothesis of science is that we don't know either way if a Bigfoot exists or not. Agnosticism is the null hypothesis, stripped of assumptions either way and totally open to the dictates of the evidence itself.
No, the null hypothesis is that there is no relationship between any two things, like bigfoot myths and their actual existence. It is not agnostic. Atheism, the belief that there is no god, is in fact a null hypothesis...that there is no relationship between god and its actual existence.
Again, I am open to compelling evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.
You're just easily convinced (gullible) because you lack skepticism.
Quote:
Quote:Science goes by verifiable evidence,

Right...as in verified accounts of thousands of other sightings of Bigfoot in Russia, as in the verifying eyewitness accounts by 3 people, and as in the verifying footprints filmed on the camera. This is compelling evidence for Bigfoot, a creature that has been proven to exist thousands of times by thousands of accounts and footprints. To deny it is only to expose a slavish devotion to anti-anomalism--the belief that anomalous phenomena cannot exist. Which is basically an article of faith, since there can never be evidence for the non-existence of anomalous phenomena. The video speaks for itself...bipedal footprints leading up to a bipedal furred figure in the branches that suddenly darts away. This is compelling evidence.

Again, learn what the words you use mean. Scientific verification is very different from common agreement. And something considered scientifically proven is far different than a lot of people believing it to be true. You just can't keep from conflating fact with a consensus fallacy, because you don't even seem to know the difference.

"anti-anomalism" LOL! Rolleyes
The fact that you must rate these things as anomalous demonstrates they are not verified or proven and that they do fall outside of the null hypothesis.
And it's a straw man that the anomalous can't exist, as everything was anomalous at some point. It's trivial that they were.
You just want to make the leap of blind faith from anomalous to proven without any scientific literacy at all.
Quote:And I'm more convinced than ever of the reality of Bigfoot as a result.
Of course you are. That's how blind faith works. Any little thing strengthens it, but nothing even weakens it.
Reply
#28
Quote:Of course you are. That's how blind faith works. Any little thing strengthens it, but nothing even weakens it.

Nope...that's how the null hypothesis works. No assumption regarding the existence or nonexistence of Bigfoot. Pure evidence directing you to the most probable explanation. And then that evidence supported and verified by thousands of other accounts and footprints. You just can't deny all the scientific evidence for Bigfoot. And that's what we have in support of the existence of Bigfoot. Bipedal giant footprints leading to a filmed biped furry figure that suddenly darts away from the 3 eyewitnesses. It doesn't get any better than that. Deny it as you try.
Reply
#29
(May 4, 2018 10:01 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Of course you are. That's how blind faith works. Any little thing strengthens it, but nothing even weakens it.

Nope...that's how the null hypothesis works. No assumption regarding the existence or nonexistence of Bigfoot. Pure evidence directing you to the most probable explanation. And then that evidence supported and verified by thousands of other accounts and footprints. You just can't deny all the scientific evidence for Bigfoot. And that's what we have in support of the existence of Bigfoot. Bipedal giant footprints leading to a filmed biped furry figure that suddenly darts away from the 3 eyewitnesses. It doesn't get any better than that. Deny it as you try.

Again, thanks for reiterating your scientific illiteracy. Continued misuse of words like "null hypothesis" and "verified" and "scientific evidence". Rolleyes
I can only assume whatever "pure evidence" is differs from scientific evidence. And "most probable" seems to ignore the contradiction with "anomalous".

But praise bigfoot Jesus, MR has seen the light! Rolleyes
Reply
#30
Believe science when it says something is. Disbelieve science when it says something is not.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Survivorman Bigfoot Magical Realist 58 2,607 Dec 28, 2017 10:21 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Bigfoot footage Magical Realist 7 378 Oct 11, 2016 09:43 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)