Re: Bigfoot photos: Real or Fake?

On Oct 25, 1:59 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mike3 wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:54 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mike3 wrote:
> Hmm. Thanks for the photograph. Looking at that, it's possible
> it might be a bear. I did not say it _was_ Bigfoot, you know.

Ya think?

Sure. We just asked a professional wildlife biologist now,

Actually there was quite a bit of that by the time you
started this stupid "Bigfoot photos" thread.

and they've said it's a bear. Looking at it some more, it really
does start to look bearish. So, yes, there's a good possibility
that it's a bear.

The photos do not now look any different than they did
when you started this thread. They never suggested any
reason to babble about Bigfoot.


Did I say they looked different now? Nah, I didn't.
That's a straw man fallacy.

How did the skeptics know to think "bear" while you
were so clueless? Do you think we are coincidentally
experts in illnesses of bears? Nope; we just have a
grasp of reality and some net-search skills.


There's nothing wrong with being clueless -- the
problem is when you use that to springboard to "Whoa!
It's Bigfoot!" (so called "Ad Ignorantiam" fallacy),
instead of just staying at the position of ignorance,
"I dunno", until one's cluelessness is alleviated with
knowledge. Since I did not do the former, then I was
doing the most reasonable thing possible, and then
sought to obtain a clue. In this case, now that the knowledge
has been acquired and the clues have been given, it seems
that a bear may be a reasonable possibility.

> Because that's what people call the photos.

Yup. Gullible.

Critiquing what I use as a NAME for the photos does not
win any points, it's just a NAME, you know.

If I post "Kennedy Assignation Photo..." wouldn't you
tend to think I'm out of line if it were a photo of,
say, a bear?


Yes. But isn't this kind of pointless? I can't go back and
change the name of the thread, so why bother arguing
this?

So what would be your answer to your own question? Is
the Bigfoot photo real or fake?

Even if it's a bear, then the photo could technically be said to
be "real", in that there was no hoaxing involved. But it would
of course not be anything to do with Bigfoot. It's only "fake"

[...]

Yup. Your fallacy there is called "false dichotomy" or
"false dilemma". Look it up.


You wanted an answer. If the question was itself a false
dilemma, then of course the answer is going to be too.
You wanted me to answer, is it real or fake, but it seems
that that question was a false dilemma, just as you said.
In light of that, perhaps the better question is: "Is it Bigfoot
or not?" The answer is, since there's a good possibility
this may be a bear or some other "known" animal, there's
a good possibility the answer to that is "no". With no
evidence yet to suggest it was Bigfoot, and some evidence
to suggest that it was not, guess which answer would
seem most plausible right here.

But hey! Science is about truth, not about dreams. If
something turns out to be mundane, you've got to run with
that. That's the way it is, and I concede that fact.

What, it's going to nuke the planet or something?! Furthermore,
I am 100% open to being wrong. That's why I want you to
give me the clues. I want to learn something, unlike most.

I and others have given you clue after clue.

Yes, you have. And I've been listening.

George's
quote of the famous advice, "think of horses not zebras"
was a clue. Your escaped orangutan theory showed you
lacked even the clue so recently given.


Because at that time, I kept thinking a bear had look like
this big, bulky thing whose legs would not appear as long
as they do in the photos. That's why I suggested the escaped
pet orangutan, or the chimpanzee. But it would still be an
incredible coincidence to have such a rare thing wander in
front of the camera like that. But I had to stay with it since
the bear explanation still did not seem likely based on the
way the creature was shaped -- however once I started to toy
with the possibility of mange, then the bear idea seemed
to make more sense. Especially with this latest photo
I dug up of a bear with mange:

http://www.terrierman.com/mangeinblackbearflorida.jpg

So then naturally I've been led away from the orangutan
explanation. It also looks like a significant amount of
people on the forums have also been going the bear
route for this photo. In fact on one site called "Bigfoot
Forums" where there was a discussion of this, the very
photo I found was actually used in the discussions to
support the bear claim!:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=46&t=20689

Interesting discussions they had there.

When the next
bad photograph of some unfamiliar form appears, a sensible
person might think, "that's nothing I recognize, but so
what? Lots of things I cannot identify; many images no
one will be able to identify. It's no evidence for ghosts,
ET, Bigfoot, or any such chimerical fantasy."

Credophiles tend to get the lessons exactly wrong,
thinking along the lines: "When it's an ordinary creature
like a bear, someone shows it. They haven't identified
this one, so... Bigfoot! Bigfoot! Bigfoot!"

But I didn't say that. I didn't say, BIGFOOT, BIGFOOT,
BIGFOOT!!!! WOOHOOO!!!!! It was a curious photo.
Far from a "smoking gun" proof of anything.

Oh spare us. Are you not the same mike3, and formerly
mike4, who started those other stupid Bigfoot threads?

Sure.

I never put you on a position you did not take. You
keep talking about Bigfoot and it's all just nonsense.

You had said you wanted to understand why there are
all these Bigfoot stories, but instead of looking
into the reality, you go on with this garbage.

What's the garbage? You mean because I just admitted
the slightest POSSIBILITY that Bigfoot MIGHT exist,
even though as just that, a possibility, not a certainty?
However, since I *DID*, contrary to your claim, look
into the "reality", I started to see the bear explanation
as viable. So what "garbage" am I _continuing_ with?

Want
another clue? Tacitus offered it almost 2000 years
ago: Omne ignotum pro magnifico.


Well, looking that up, it seems to mean "everything
unknown is taken for magnificent." But the thing is,
just because I did not know what the thing in the photo
was, I did not springboard to the idea that Bigfoot
exists and was captured there.

--
--Bryan


.

Relevant Pages