World's Only 24/7 Bigfoot News Blog: Encouraging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence and arguments.
Bigfooting, what went wrong?
Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence.
Extant species require greater than zero individuals
If these "individuals" didn't exist... They wouldn't be leaving their sign. It's very straight forward.
They leave only evidence that is ambiguous, hence the non confirmation. Very straight forward indeed.
Nothing ambiguous about species traits... In fact, there's nothing ambiguous about repeatable scientific evidence. Learn the basics, it might help.
Species traits that you come up with by using the stuff that fits and ignoring the stuff that doesnt. Indeed learn the basics.
Wow man, that made a lot of sense. Put it like this... I've researched your own stance more than you have, I'm aware of arguments against the evidence, notably species traits that you aren't even aware of yet... And none of it stands up.
I have no stance. I go by the evidence whereever that leads. And none of it leads to an actual bigfoot. Sorry, nothing personal kid.
Hmmmmmm... I wonder what other bipedal primate, twice the size of normal human primates is leaving its physical evidence all over the US? If the evidence was remotely important to you, you'd have better arguments. For something that is allegedly so obvious... That doesn't look good on you. Posting "Bigfoot don't exist" every day of your life, whilst coming here to check on the existence of "Bigfoot" every day of your life (cough, cough), doesn't magically make that evidence go away.
What evidence? I wish there was some evidence for the sake of your mental health
I suppose in your case, it's better to act like a chronic denialist and deny the evidence that's been rubbed in your face every day of your life... Rather than look silly trying to explain it away.
Again. What evidence?
"The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists."
You are correct there is no legitimate debate to be had about bigfoot much like there is no legitimate debate to be had about the earth being flat
I am correct that you are being rhetorical? You're trolling and out of your depth. Like I said... For someone who comes along every day to convince people that they're stupid, isn't it slightly ironic that you should have better arguments for the one thing that makes your efforts a little futile?(The evidence)
Haaa haa haa .I'm still cracking up about" your backside resembles a JAP FLAG"!! Comment.AC collins
How many years of zero bigfoots is it gonna take to get the point across?
Maybe you should preoccupy yourself with explaining away the evidence for "Bigfoots"? Demonstrate just how stupid people like me are. Because as it stands, you just come across like you have long term issues with what cleverer people think on the internet.
No burden to be lifted im afraid. Dump a bigfoot body on my door and ill take a look.
Without a single consorted effort from mainstream scientists to investigate, that lack of body remains a negative proof fallacy. And you have the burden of explaining the evidence to bear.
Plenty of scientists in bigfoot habitat. Not to mention everyone else. Hundreds of thousands each weekend. Zero bigfoots or evidence thereof.
With hundreds of thousands of walkers, hunters, scientists, campers, hikers, photographers, runners, forest management etc, all out in the places where this species has been found to leave physical evidence, there is three database of reports that transition from thousands of years of cultural acknowledgement. If there was no physical evidence to substantiate such a frequency of reports, then your drivel would have some basis in fact... But the problem is there is too much of it.
Yep that is the problem. The fact that you can have so many reports yet zero substantiated evidence is absolutely fatal.
To substantiate scientific evidence, it needs to be repeatable. If the ridge characteristics in dermatoglyphics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints, are verified in collaboration with tens of scientists who have determined anatomy like heels, ankles, and Achilles' tendons... And are consistent with casts over a period of 50 years (after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints), then this is repeatable scientific evidence. Stop complaining about it and lift that burden. You never know, you might get a little satisfaction for once.
Link me to 10 different casts found in different locations by different people that have the same dermal ridges?
You can have this and like it... http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints"Krantz (1983: 71-72) writes: "Thus far, every specialist who has examined these casts [Mill Creek] agrees that their detailed anatomy has all the characteristics and appearance of being derived from an imprint of primate skin. These include thirty police fingerprint workers, ... six physical anthropologists ... four pathologists and two zoologists."
Lol a lot of people getting duped.
Argh of course... That's your burden. Shift it.
Some guy has an opinion about some casts? Cool. Wheres the bigfoot then?
That's a little more than one guy... And what's determined is there is biological sign of something that has the same widely reported anatomy as "Bigfoot" leaving its impression on the ground in the US.
You're being critical, your burden. Prove it.
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. Your extraordinary claim is that there is nothing to thousands of years of cultural and contemporary reports, that have physical evidence to support. If a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
This comment has been removed by the author.