[evancj]

doesnt_matter on Feb 9 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

So because some people believed the gorilla existed when it was considered a cryptid , then those people believed all cryptids exist?

The gorilla is the exception not the rule. In this case sightings resulted in evidence (a body) that proved their existence. Why hasn't the same been found in the case of others cryptids?

I don't know if those people believed in other cryptids, but thats pretty much what I am asking in this post.

[evancj]

Incorrigible1 on Feb 9 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

A Washington State park ranger or game warden makes an eyewitness account of a glimpse of a large, upright, hairy creature.

A tourist from the midwest, driving through a remote part of Oregon stops to change a flat tire, and encounters a large, upright, hairy creature.

Must you lend equal credence to both scenarios? Not in my book.

The rush to deny reports from respected, sane and sober people with an outdoors background is rather silly.

Yes I do agree that some witnesses can be more credible but that is not the point here. The point is that none of the sightings regardless the reporters credibility have been substantiated with actual physical evidence such as the case of the gorilla. I would also question who is making the judgment call on the credibility of a witness? even park rangers can be drunk lairs looking for attention.

[Undeadskeptic]

Are you purposefully trying to make a fool of yourself?

[evancj]

makaya325 on Feb 9 2008, 03:59 PM, said:

if their was a good number of real reports and that was buried in with fake sightings, does that mean its not real? no

I am sure there are a lot of good honest people that sincerely believe they saw a cryptid when in actuality it was mistaken ID. I am in no way trying to besmirch anyones good names, or imply they are not intelligent. All I am saying is that the evidence for the Nessie, dinosaurs, Bigfoot, and other assorted cryptids are exactly the same. So how does a believer in one cryptid determine that another is not real based on the same evidence?

[evancj]

MacDDT on Feb 9 2008, 04:09 PM, said:

thats like saying if you believe there is a chance of life outside of our planet then you have to believe in all the alien and ufo stories ... weak reasoning evancj

It's your analogy that is weak.

You can believe in life on other planets with out believing in UFO's. belief in UFO's requires that one believe in interstellar travel. I do not believe you have understood my question nice try though.

[evancj]

Undeadskeptic on Feb 9 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

What a moronic argument and a waste of my time.

Yet still you found time to make this post no need to get hostile MATE.

This post has been edited by evancj: 10 February 2008 - 01:16 AM

[evancj]

Undeadskeptic on Feb 9 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Still a moronic waste of time.

Yet again you are drawn to my moronic post, and compelled to interject such intelligent insights into the conversation. Thank you for your participation, obviously you are a very gifted intellectually and no doubt will return to grace me with your clever remarks.

[Ourmoonlitsun]

doesnt_matter on Feb 9 2008, 09:52 PM, said:

So because some people believed the gorilla existed when it was considered a cryptid , then those people believed all cryptids exist?

Yeah, they nailed it here. Evancj, the inverse of your statement--that if one believes in one cryptid they must believe in them all--is that if one cryptid is proven true then, because evidence for each cryptid is, by your value system, equal to every other cryptid, every other cryptid is proven true.

And by stating that something is the exception and not the rule, as how you referred to the gorilla, highlights your flawed logic because on one hand you state the evidence for each individual cryptid is equal to every other cryptid; yet on the other hand you acknowledge exceptions, where the cryptid was found to exist. A generalization does not hold true if you allow for exceptions.

[evancj]

Undeadskeptic on Feb 9 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

Are you purposefully trying to make a fool of yourself?

No I am not, oh wise one.

Perhaps you can show me were my foolish brain has steered me wrong? If you understand the intent of my post then please help me reword it so others can understand better.

[~ MacDDT ~]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

No I am not, oh wise one.

Perhaps you can show me were my foolish brain has steered me wrong? If you understand the intent of my post then please help me reword it so others can understand better.

I think your brain is saying "I want to start a flamefest by being unreasonable" lol see ya...

[Fluffybunny]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 05:32 PM, said:

No I am not, oh wise one.

Perhaps you can show me were my foolish brain has steered me wrong? If you understand the intent of my post then please help me reword it so others can understand better.

To be really blunt, I thought you were kidding when I read the post, I thought that there was no way that you could be serious saying what you were saying and that you were somehow trying to pull our collective legs.

It is the worst use of logic that I have ever seen, I dont even know what classification of logic error it would fall under it is so false. Really. It isnt like you, and I am not trying to be mean, but I can understand where the comments are coming from even though they are a bit harsh.

I think that there may be a disconnect between what you are trying to say, and what you are saying.

This post has been edited by Fluffybunny: 10 February 2008 - 01:40 AM

[evancj]

Fluffybunny on Feb 9 2008, 06:40 PM, said:

To be really blunt, I thought you were kidding when I read the post, I thought that there was no way that you could be serious saying what you were saying and that you were somehow trying to pull our collective legs.

It is the worst use of logic that I have ever seen, I dont even know what classification of logic error it would fall under it is so false. Really. It isnt like you, and I am not trying to be mean, but I can understand where the comments are coming from even though they are a bit harsh.

I think that there may be a disconnect between what you are trying to say, and what you are saying.

Thanks for the civilized reply. These cryptid folks are a rough bunch.

I guess I am not communicating my point every well. And unfortunately I can not think of another way to say it. I think Yetihunter got the gist of what I was trying to say. Unfortunately no one else did.

I did not intend to insult anyone or question anyone’s belief in cryptids. Basically what I was looking for was: I believe in cryptid X for these reasons but I do not believe in cryptid Y for these reasons. I am relatively new to most crypitds with the exception of BF, and Nessie and from my perspective the evidence to support them is usually based on sightings, stories, foot prints, and poor photography. I wonder how one filters all the BS out to come to a belief in one over the other.

I guess the title of my OP was probably an unfortunate use of language.

Anyway feel free to help me better explain if you understand what I am getting at.

Thanks

This post has been edited by evancj: 10 February 2008 - 02:35 AM

[makaya325]

evancj on Feb 10 2008, 01:04 AM, said:

I am sure there are a lot of good honest people that sincerely believe they saw a cryptid when in actuality it was mistaken ID. I am in no way trying to besmirch anyones good names, or imply they are not intelligent. All I am saying is that the evidence for the Nessie, dinosaurs, Bigfoot, and other assorted cryptids are exactly the same. So how does a believer in one cryptid determine that another is not real based on the same evidence?

some cryptids are likely real

[Piney]

I believe in Bigfoot but you would have one hell of a time convincing me there's a Jersey Devil. I don't believe in dragons. But Nessie could be real. Who knows?



Lapiche

[evancj]

Piney on Feb 9 2008, 07:56 PM, said:

I believe in Bigfoot but you would have one hell of a time convincing me there's a Jersey Devil. I don't believe in dragons. But Nessie could be real. Who knows?
Lapiche

Ok,

Thank you for helping me out here. Please understand that I will not make any assumptions about your intelligence, education, or your moral/ethical standards. My goal is not to disprove cryptids, but to understand why someone finds cryptid X believable and cryptid Y not believable. Just curious I guess.

What convinced you that Bigfoot is real?

Have you or someone you know and trust ever had a Bigfoot encounter?

Do you believe native stories about Bigfoot are actual descriptions of a species of ape that has yet to be described by science and still exists today in North America?

How do you determine if sightings, and footprint evidence are; hoaxes, mistaken identity, or real?

Do you believe any photo/film evidence of Bigfoot?

What convinced you that the Jersey Devil is not real?

What is the Jersey Devil?

Is the Jersey Devil less believable because of what it is?

Are there any native stories about the Jersey Devil, or are they more contemporary?

Is there any blurry photographs/film of the Jersey Devil?

Are there any clear photos/films of the Jersey Devil?

Are there regular reported sighting of the Jersey Devil?

Why do you not believe witnesses that say they have seen the Jersey Devil?

Again thanks for the reply.