Bigfoot

You can't Crash. It's as simple as that. If you don't know the KIND of fuel you can not make predictions about the AMOUNT of that fuel needed.If you don't know the kind of fuel you can not draw conclusions such as "there isn't enough space in the spaceship to hold it all"To hold all of what? What are they holding? How much are they holding? You don't know. You can't know.You can claim all you want that this sort of reasoning is great logic on your part. It doesn't make it so.You simply CAN NOT make statements quantifying something if you don't have information about the substance you are trying to quantify.Likewise, you can not say, there isn't enough "food" in the pacific northwest to feed an animal if you don't know what that animal eats for food.You claim it's an herbavore and that there are thousands of them out there. It's your duty to show that it is an herbavore and that the population is in the thousands - neither of which you can do. Therefore, you can not draw the conclusion that there is not enough food since BOTH of your variables are completely made up by you.THAT's my point. That has ALWAYS been my point. It's the central point of message 1.You can not disprove something by imagining up some "facts" and proclaiming that proof.You can say - we don't have evidence for...
You can say - there's no good photos of...But you can't say - I can disprove this based on these "facts" I just made up.

Crash, you are now asking that I prove that Native Americans are humans. That's not just retarded, it's frankly racist and insulting.I don't know what sort of lilly white background you hail from, but being part Native American myself, I find these sort of accusations outrageous.Native Americans are, of course, human. As such, they are, like all humans, primates.If I'm going to have to build an argument up from the absolute ground level, there simply isn't enough time to bring you up to speed.Inevitably, you will start to claim that I have not yet proven that Native Americans are carbon based. It's just ridiculous.

Ringo, as I said earlier, once Crash adopted the mantle of the argument it not longer becomes necessary for me to prove that people are making the argument.Crash himself is making it. I refer you to the rest of the thread.

False.Crash is not one of the "experts" you claimed. Nor has he "adopted the mantle of the argument", since there is no evidence that the argument - as you stated it - even exists.I don't see where anybody has said Bigfoot "can't" exist. The arguments have shown a very high probability that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It's called "inductive reasoning".You might still be able to redeem yourself if you back up your claims and address the real arguments instead of just throwing tantrums.

---

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

I realize you can't, but the rest of us aren't hobbled by your lack of imagination. But that's clearly nonsense. Regardless of what kind of engine the putative aliens use, regardless of what fuels it, they have to live in our universe, which means that they still have to obey physical laws, which means that regardless of what kind of fuel it is, it has to operate within thermodynamic constraints.Otherwise what you're talking about is magic. You're saying that the aliens use magic fuel, at which point the burden of evidence is on you to substantiate the existence of magic in the universe. Sure I can. They're not definitive, but the constraints of physical law in the universe set constraints on what is physically possible. One of those things might be an alien spaceship of any size holding all the fuel it needs to accelerate and decelerate to and from sufficient velocities to make a trip from (for instance) Alpha Centuri within a reasonable period of time (say, 2 years.)Nobody's saying that these arguments aren't predicated on a lot of assumptions - but they're the assumptions of the alien proponents and the Bigfoot proponents, so you can hardly make the case that they're improper assumptions without demolishing your own case for aliens and Bigfoot.That's legitimate reasoning - it's called "proof by contradiction." You show how your opponents position would lead to impossible contradictions if it were true. You don't have to show that it's true in order to use the proof by contradiction - how could you? It's nonsense to even suggest it. I can and did, based on your assumption that Bigfoot exists.That's all I need. I don't need to substantiate your assumptions to show that they lead to impossible conclusions.This is, of course, the sixth time that you've ignored that basic and obvious point. Why is that?

Um, no. I'm asking you to prove that there were continuous, year-round settlements by Native Americans in the mountains of the Pacific northwest.How about you address my points instead of these ridiculous strawmen? Don't be an idiot. And don't assume I'm one and that I'm going to fall for this ridiculous attempt to dodge the question and misrepresent me. It's abundantly clear that you're incapable of behaving honestly on this issue, and your attempt to misrepresent the debate is a clear violation of forum rule 8. You can be assured that my next post will be a complain in the moderation forum about your disingenuous attempt to portray me as a racist.And it's time you answered my question. For the seventh time, do you understand how the proof by contradiction works, or don't you?

If making the exact same argument is not "adopting the mantle of the argument" then what the hell is? Understand, I am not arguing against statements like: "The field biologists are in the best position to find evidence of any kind and have found none."That statement is absolutely fine.My problem is statements like:
"there isn't enough food to support this animal in the pacific northwest".That sort of statement requires information which is not known to the person making the statement.That's my claim in a nutshell.

[qs]the rest of us aren't hobbled by your lack of imagination.[qs] Oh really? How much solar energy fuel would aliens need to store onboard their craft? How much nuclear fuel? How much petroleum? And those are just examples of fuels we can access ourselves.These are radically different fuels requiring radically different spacial requirements.Yes, they exist in our universe, but you are arbitrarily assigning them one type of technology over another in order to make your point. There you go again. That's EXACTLY what I am talking about.You are attributing these things with a point of origin (Alpha Centuri) and a time of travel (2 years). These are ARBITRARY decisions on your part.You can not disprove the existance of alien spacecraft based on this. You can barely use it to argue against aliens coming from Alpha Centuri in 2 years. And that you've failed to do. You said, Bigfoot couldn't survive in the Pacific Northwest because there isn't enough plant life. I suggest they may be omnivores and you claim they couldn't possible catch fish without fishhooks. I point out that there are animals which do this all the time and you respond with claims "Bigfoot is a hibernating ruminant".Then you wonder why I have trouble believing what you are saying. This is completely false. No where did I claim that Bigfoot was a herbavore - this is your claim. No where did I claim that Bigfoot must number in the thousands - again, your claim.Further, your "justifications" for these claims have been disproven.Assuming Bigfoot is a primate, not all primates are herbavores.
Assuming that Bigfoot is currently a member of a genetically viable population - this does not require thousands of individuals.AND, it's an assumption that it's currently viable. It could be on the verge of extinction. I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that you can't arbitrarily assign it a population density then declare it disproven because your made up facts don't work in your made up equation.

You haven't demonstrated that he is making "the exact same argument" because you haven't established that the original argument even exists. That's what we call a "strawman".Show us where "experts" have made the arguments that you are complaining about.

---

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

Get over yourself, Crash. You repeated your claims that no primates live in the Pacific Northwest after being reminded that Native Americans in fact do live there.So, either you aren't reading the post, or you don't believe that Native Americans aren't primates.Since you claim to be reading the post, I have to assume that you are claiming that Native Americans aren't primates.And, for the record -
http://content.lib.washington.edu/aipnw/hnai12.htmlI've been trying to post this link as an image all morning, but can't get the code to behave.This is a map of non-costal Pac NW tribes. The ones you claim don't exist.As for your little "this is the seventh time" crap. I've responded to you EVERY time. Just because you continue to make unfounded claims based on your own assumptions doesn't mean I don't understand why you are wrong.If you STILL think you can disprove anything (especially this) by making up your own quantitative data you've got a real problem because this is I've had to correct you on this.

I think you are confused Ringo... If you post something that says "I heard some "expert" say grass is actually purple" and I respond by saying "It is! It is purple!"You are free to address my statement without having to dig up the name of the actual "expert" you are originally quoting.Once I make the same claim as the expert, you can address my claims directly. That's not a strawman.

Please address your attention to the person's rebuttal and not to the person himself, especially those of you who already have a red warning banner (if you don't see it, it ain't you).

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As I said, you haven't established that crash is making the same claims.You're claiming that "experts" have made claims and you're claiming that crash is making the same claims. We can see what claims crash is making, but we have only your word that they're "the same claims".That isn't good enough.It's a simple enough request: If such "experts" exist and if such claims exist, show us. Then we can decide for ourselves whether or not crash is making the same claims.

---

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

I'm afraid you've lost me.Either Crash is making the claim that there is not enough food in the pacific northwest to support a Bigfoot population or he isn't.If Crash is making this claim, then it is independent of whether or not anyone else has ever made such a claim.As it stands, a similiar claim was made on a show I saw part of a few days ago. I have been trying for an hour to find the exact name of the show, then to find it's credits, and pinpoint exactly who the woman was who made the claim and was subtitled as an "expert".Not surprisingly, I'm finding it difficult to check previous airtimes for shows as opposed to upcoming shows.I suspect the Documentary was "Sasquatch: Legend meets Science", but unfortunately I can not find a list of credits for the show (documentaries - at least this one - are not covered by IMDB).The search, however, continues. Ideally, I'll be able to give you her name, title and an exact quote.In the meantime, I have found other references to the arguements on other sites, but frequently they are uncreditted as well. (ie "it's been said that..." type quotes - so there's not much point in listing them here.)Is it possible that I misheard the woman or misquoted her? Sure.But that doesn't change that fact that Crash is trying to support the misquote as his own arguement.

Well, it isn't a "fact" at all until it's been established as a fact.In the OP, you said that the topic is about "why some evidence is acceptable and other evidence isn't, or why some reasoning simply doesn't apply." You have also admitted that there is practically zero hard evidence for Bigfoot.You seem to be suggesting that soft evidence (e.g. eyewitness reports) becomes "more acceptable" if there is no hard evidence - but hard evidence about other living creatures in the same environment is "less acceptable".That reasoning doesn't seem to apply.

---

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