Colorado train passengers capture Bigfoot on video

That’s a great point. It makes me wonder why so many people don’t marvel enough over the mundane, though? There is plenty of mystery out there of the natural kind, that we have yet to fully understand. No need to concoct half man/half beast fantasies that really sound sillier than they do fascinating.

Alleged haunted houses and UAP’s are at the very least, curious, because it’s the fear of the unknown that causes many of us to question what lies beyond.

The general public do not want the mundane, they want Ghosts, Spirits, Monsters, Aliens, Big foot, mermaids and Elvis.

I for one am not criticising ancient cultures for believing this stuff. They had a low bar in terms of facts, verification and did not have any modern tools to rule chaff out.

Today we have more information at our disposal and tools to help us get to which claims have any credence.
 
Pinball said: I for one am not criticising ancient cultures for believing this stuff. They had a low bar in terms of facts, verification and did not have any modern tools to rule chaff out.

Today we have more information at our disposal and tools to help us get to which claims have any credence.

"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion."---- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/#:~:text=A comprehensive demographic study of,world population of 6.9 billion.

You were saying?o_O
 
"A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion."---- https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/#:~:text=A comprehensive demographic study of,world population of 6.9 billion.

You were saying?o_O
That number is probably very accurate. Religion, if taught to a child from a young age, from people they trust, like parents, siblings, teachers and others in the community, is likely to stay in that person's life for a while.
 
I don't think so. There is no evidence for most the events that have occurred in my past. Yet I still believe they happened.
The epistemology seems different as regards memories that admit of some sorts of verification. We witness an event, we can interrogate our own mental state at the time (alert, sober, spectacles on, say), the mental state of other co-observers who report the same event, snapshots, physical impressions, other traces, and so on. An absence of evidence for an extraordinary and anomalous thing someone claims is a different matter. We would set the bar fairly high for a flying pig. We might even question it if one took flight right in front of us. Perhaps someone spiked the punch. Or it's a magician's trick. We would seek other witnesses, further measurements, because the extraordinary event would call for extraordinary evidence.

For a Bigfoot, and a claimed nest in the woods, it is reasonable to ask for some trace evidence - a tuft of hair or other source of testable DNA, a scat sample, a footprint casting taken in the presence of a neutral observer with prerequisite professional training, etc. As the potential for, and motivation for, fakery rises, so must the number of multiple lines of evidence that all point consistently towards a creature that is not a human recluse or hobo or extreme camper getting in touch with their hunter gatherer roots.
 
I don't think so. There is no evidence for most the events that have occurred in my past. Yet I still believe they happened.

But you wouldn't bring those events in your past onto the public stage and try to convince us we should believe them too, just because you do.

This guy isn't trying to keep his personal beliefs in his back pocket is he?

Bit of a case of apples and oranges there.
 
But you wouldn't bring those events in your past onto the public stage and try to convince us we should believe them too, just because you do.

There'd be no reason for anyone to doubt my account of my own life, unless they're just paranoid and think I'm a compulsive liar. Generally speaking we believe what people tell us happened to them.
 
I don't think so. There is no evidence for most the events that have occurred in my past. Yet I still believe they happened.
How do you think you'd go if you had to prove to a court of law that some of those unevidenced events happened? Your personal assurances to the court that stuff happened as you assert it happened wouldn't count for much, I assure you. Your 'eyewitness' testimony is what it is: pretty weak evidence, as far as a court would be concerned. What a court would like to see is corroborating evidence that helps to prove your case, preferably in the form of documented or otherwise verifiable facts.

A court would be aware, for example, that if you were bringing an action, you would have a bias, not to mention an incentive to tell lies about unverifiable things that might support your argument. A judge or jury would surely take such things into account in assessing any evidence you gave.
 
There'd be no reason for anyone to doubt my account of my own life, unless they're just paranoid and think I'm a compulsive liar. Generally speaking we believe what people tell us happened to them.
You are wrong.

For instance, the judge deciding your court case will - most likely - not be paranoid. She might also not conclude that you are a compulsive liar, unless suitable evidence of a history of compulsive lying on your part was produced by the other side.

Nevertheless, the judge will be aware that you are incentivised to tell certain kinds of lies, and she will bear that in mind in evaluating any assertions you make that are not supported by independent lines of evidence.
---

On the other point you have raised, suppose I say to you right now that I own a dog called Mr Binoculars. Do you believe me?

According to you, generally speaking you will believe what people tell you happened to them. So, when I tell you that I happened to call my dog Mr Binoculars when I collected him from the animal shelter 3 years ago, I suppose you'll believe me. Right?

After all, you're not paranoid, are you?
And you don't think I'm a compulsive liar, do you?
So, generally speaking, do you believe my dog story, or not?
 
Last edited:
There'd be no reason for anyone to doubt my account of my own life, unless they're just paranoid and think I'm a compulsive liar. Generally speaking we believe what people tell us happened to them.

You do not have to be a compulsive liar, you can remember things incorrectly, or just plain forget.

Have you never forgot something?

Or discussed an event with a friend and disagree what year an event was? Who was there? Where it was?


Memories are not written in stone, they are malleable and fallible, that is when people are trying their best to tell the truth.


I have mentioned this before, if a personal testimony and or eyewitness account was reliable, we would not need juries.

Accounts are evidence in court not verdicts.
 
There'd be no reason for anyone to doubt my account of my own life,
Unless you tried to convince us you'd seen a unicorn. Then we'd be skeptical and ask for evidence.

And - if you tried to convince us you'd devoted some fraction of your life, resources, fortune and friends/colleagues to expressly seek out unicorns, and that you had seen a unicorn twenty-seven times - but couldn't manage to recover a single bit of irrefutable evidence - we'd rightfully call you incompetent.


(You see how long a walk that was to get there? That looooong walk is the distance between the scenario we were talking about and the one you tried to introduce as if it was somehow analogous. You dragged every reader on that completely unnecessary journey, simply out of spite. Shame on you.)
 
According to you, generally speaking you will believe what people tell you happened to them. So, when I tell you that I happened to call my dog Mr Binoculars when I collected him from the animal shelter 3 years ago, I suppose you'll believe me. Right?

Yes..I would believe you. Unless I suspected you were trying to make a point about people always lying about their account of their own experience. Then I would believe you were lying in order to make a point.
 
Yes..I would believe you. Unless I suspected you were trying to make a point about people always lying about their account of their own experience. Then I would believe you were lying in order to make a point.
What if he stood to gain a lot of money if he could convince you his account was true?
 
Another elaborate and contrived scenario to make a point.
Elaboration? Contrivance??

We are literally talking about topical people and situations that have been brought up right here in this very thread about this very thread topic.

We're talking average everyday experience here, not some sinister plot to deceive me.
How is an alleged twenty-seven sightings of Bigfoot considered an "average everyday experience"? That is, after all, the connection you submitted. Connect those dots for us.


And you dodged the question: Do you take the word of people who might stand to make money (or other form of gain) off our support of them, or no? That's a valid question.
 
Last edited:
How is an alleged twenty-seven sightings of Bigfoot considered an "average everyday experience"? That is, after all, the connection you submitted. Connect those dots for us.

I was asked by James if I would believe him if he told me his dog is named binoculars. And I said I would. There is nothing dubious or extraordinary about that. Why would he lie about something like that? Furthermore, why would a man saying he saw bigfoot 27 times lie about that? Given all the evidence for bigfoot's existence, it is not out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top