• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
Still doesn't work. Are you getting through because you are logged-in to BFF?
Click to expand...

It's in the Member's Lounge. Damn. Should be in Cryptozoology. Only members are allowed in that area.

This is a BFF thread about the Cambodian Wild Woman right? Where (topic) is it located there?
Click to expand...

Thread title is: "Half-animal" woman discovered in Cambodia

Maybe Greg will copy and paste it for you. He's a member.
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
Because there was NO WAY that what they saw was a bear.
Here's Joyce's report...filed in 2002...

May, 1983...
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe her memory of the incident is just as vivid today as it was 23 years ago?

It will take more than a 23 year-old anecdotal report to convince me of the validity of bigfoot.

RayG
 
RayG said:
It will take more than a 23 year-old anecdotal report to convince me of the validity of bigfoot.

RayG
Click to expand...
That doubt makes you a skeptic, Ray. As a skeptic any opinions you have as such are going to be readily dismissed by Sweaty since 'maybe I'm wrong and bigfoot doesn't exist' is not a concession his beliefs will seem to allow.

As a skeptic you are not a person who has examined the BF evidence in hand and come to the inevitable conclusion that it is lacking, you are a dirty word. You are one of 'them', those close-minded outdated dinosaurs that poo-poo what any intuitive, open-minded person should be able to see with just a little prior explanation.

Obviously if you can't be persuaded by the anecdote of a phone call concerning something believed to have happened 23 years ago then what's the use? We don't need substantial evidence to back our claims. Don't you understand? We've got Joyce and Joyce is a whole bucket of truthiness.
 
kitakaze wrote:
I missed where total anecdotes started being accepted as persuasive evidence. Sweaty, do you honestly expect that anecdote to be accepted as such? Shall we all start playing 'this anecdote has more truthiness'?
Click to expand...
I expect that people will WEIGH the evidence to the best of their own ability to do so.

In the case of Joyce's sighting report, it's simply a matter of weighing the probabilities of either one of only 2 possible scenarios as being the correct explanation.
Which one is the most likely explanation?
Those two scenarios are....

1) They saw a real live Bigfoot....and Joyce called me, a total stranger living in another state...to share her incredible, AMAZING experience....with someone who she knew would respond to her story in a positive way. :) (Makes sense.)

2) Joyce made the story up....and later made a long-distance phone call to me, a total stranger, simply to tell me a pack of lies....for no apparant reason other than to lie to me. A "need for attention" is not indicated...as she took approx. a week and a half to return my call. (Does not make sense.)

Those are the only 2 options...like it or not.
Take your pick as to which one YOU think is the more likely...more probable...explanation for her report and phone call.

Personally, I'm going with the "real Bigfoot sighting" option. Something about it makes MORE SENSE...to me. :D

As for the "bear misidentification" explanation...here are some things from her report that make that not even a possibliity.....
"hairy man-like creature."
He was getting up from what appeared to be from a crouching position to a standing position.
"It glanced our way and then took off...through the cow pasture."
(Okay, kids....let's take a moment to imagine a bear walking away through a cow pasture, in broad daylight....looking for all the world like a human being. :boggled: )
Her daughter reacted to seeing it by shouting..."what the f--- is that?!"
(If she saw a bear she would have said..."Look mommy...a bear!")
 

Attachments

  • Bearfoot1.jpg
    Bearfoot1.jpg
    30.9 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
This one looks JUST LIKE my Uncle Ned.....

Ironically...my Uncle Ned died of complications from taking a bullet in the back...during hunting season no less!!! :(
 

Attachments

  • BearChuck1.jpg
    BearChuck1.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 1
RayG wrote:
Do you honestly believe her memory of the incident is just as vivid today as it was 23 years ago?

It will take more than a 23 year-old anecdotal report to convince me of the validity of bigfoot.
Click to expand...
I honestly...truly...happily...believe...and think...that Joyce's memory of the incident is wonderfully...clearily :boggled: ...and stunningly....vivid. :D

It was one of those "OH MY GOD" :jaw-dropp moments.......you know...the type that STICKS in your mind.

In your opinion, Ray, which explanation seems MORE LIKELY to be the truth? Which one makes more sense to you?
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
RayG wrote:

I honestly...truly...happily...believe...and think...that Joyce's memory of the incident is wonderfully...clearily :boggled: ...and stunningly....vivid. :D

It was one of those "OH MY GOD" :jaw-dropp moments.......you know...the type that STICKS in your mind.
Click to expand...

The only thing that surprised me is the location. If the sighting had been in the Columbia Gorge, it would have been just another like dozens of others from Washington and Oregon.

Like footprints, these accounts don't mean much taken individually, but when they're added to other accounts from an area, patterns may start to emerge.
 
SweatyYeti said:
This one looks JUST LIKE my Uncle Ned.....

Ironically...my Uncle Ned died of complications from taking a bullet in the back...during hunting season no less!!! :(
Click to expand...

So sorry.

I used to stay in town during hunting season. Years later, with a locked gate, we had to replace about $100 worth of locks. A deputy made us a lock protector. Someone superglued the lock and we had to cut it off with a torch.

A poster sent me an account from her husband (because I "seem honest"). He's shot bear. It's hard to imagine why he'd make her keep the blinds closed for three days if all he saw was a bear crossing the road last Sept. 27. I might have said, "Oh sure", if I hadn't known about at least one credible report from the western Piedmont. He's not into this stuff.

Some of us are planning a get-together soon. We woos include someone who was involved in an ape project, a statistician, an attorney, an associate professor, a former minister..............One may have had a sighting, one a "not sure encounter". Two have been volunteer investigators. One founded a research organization. If nothing else, a couple of them know the best resturants and campgrounds in the areas of interest. :D
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
How do you know what if anything was seen? Oh wait, yes, you spoke on the phone. So I missed where total anecdotes started being accepted as persuasive evidence. Sweaty, do you honestly expect that anecdote to be accepted as such? Shall we all start playing 'this anecdote has more truthiness'?
Click to expand...

From my post #780:
BF-fans can (and do as kindly demonstrated by LAL) conjure up anecdotes and hypothetical appeals to the "what if?" from now until the sun expands and sucks up the planet, but in terms of verifiable, hard evidence, footprints simply ain't it.
Click to expand...

Wow!
I must be psychic!
If the cornerstone of science is predictibility, then the BF-fans who hang out here are certainly supporting my stated hypothesis nicely.

Purported BF evidence score card:

Data set Conclusive, Inconclusive, Disproven
Footprints I
Dermatoglyphics D
Hair I
Sounds I
Annecdotes I
Films I
Scat I

Nope, not a whole lot anyone with an open mind can argur there.
 
Last edited:
desertyeti said:
Wow!
I must be psychic!
If the cornerstone of science is predictibility, then the BF-fans who hang out here are certainly supporting my stated hypothesis nicely.
Click to expand...

I'm going to predictably ask for the correct source on that three-toed print photo. I can't find it in John Green's "bible".
 
Diogenes said:
Patterns emerge allright .. Just no Bigfoot...

I'll spare you the ' weak coffee ' , analogy ...

Carry on .
Click to expand...

:D
Yep, patterns of human desire to have gentle, hariy, noble savages running around in the woods. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It's interesting re-reading some of the older works on the Almas and Yeti (Odette Tcherine's for example) where the North American Bigfoot is described as being a touristy sideshow and carnival-like attraction with shady huxters possibly making everything up. These views have been largely ignored by the recent crowd of BF-fans who seem to pick and choose what they like from older work.
 
Last edited:
carcharodon said:
LOL, nice try. I post links to pictures of bona fide caught and shot alien cats which are proven, then some super scoftic points at blurry pics and mockingly says "is that all the convincing evidence you have?". Don't you think that totally ignoring and sidestepping the fact that alien big cats have been caught or shot and then going on to ridicule inconclusive pictures was denial?

Wakey wakey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71199&page=4
Click to expand...

I assume you're referring to Cuddles' question "Is this seriously the most convincing evidence you can find?". You taken this, and the other negative responses, as denials of a claim that big cats have ever been found in the UK. As should be obvious, this is a straw man that you keep reverting to. In fact, Cuddles et al (me included) were simply saying that evidence of SOME recaptured/dead cats plus duff photos of domestic cats, is NOT evidence of your implied claim that there are significant numbers of big cats out there now, and have been in the past. Please get this through your head; this is why I say you were misrepresenting people; because you seemingly don't understand that they were addressing the idea of a "phenomenon" of alien cats, not that some had escaped. I wonder why you can't grasp this important difference. I think it's because it's convenient for your arguments to characterise any doubters as unreasonable "super-scoftics" that can't be convinced.

By the way, I haven't 'claimed' there are 10 to 50 alien cats out there. It was merely a suggestion, an idea. I haven't insisted it as a fact.
Click to expand...

Of course not, because then you'd have to put up/shut up. As it is you can keep making vague unfalsifiable claims, backing down from them, then throwing more out, without ever having to commit or subject your claims to scientific method. Still, keeps your little hobby going. Have fun.

Not misrepresenting people are you Big Les?:rolleyes:

Guilty of hypocricy Big Les? Yup.
Click to expand...

Only in your warped perception of what's happened in the other thread. Since you had said you weren't going to carry on with the Nessie/Cat topic, let's not hijack things further, eh?
 
desertyeti said:
:D
It's interesting re-reading some of the older works on the Almas and Yeti (Odette Tcherine's for example) where the North American Bigfoot is described as being a touristy sideshow and carnival-like attraction with shady huxters possibly making everything up. These views have been largely ignored by the recent crowd of BF-fans who seem to pick and choose what they like from older work.
Click to expand...

Speaking of older work, the older edition of Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us doesn't have that photo, or any color photos, in it either. So what's your source? Do you have me on ignore? I seem to be speaking to cyberspace.

It's not surprising Russian researchers would dismiss our North American Bigfoot. The older Russian view of us was probably as distorted as our view of them. Grover Krantz' visits with some of them might have corrected that impression somewhat.

Dmitri Bayanov has written a book called America's Bigfoot; Fact, Not Fiction. Of course, it's not "older".
 
Big Les is nicely pointing out how believers (like the unnamed chondrichtyan) continue to try to divert attention to other matters, rather than simply stick to the subject at hand.
Belivers' (and also trolls') use of this very simple and very silly tactic only drives home the point that they simply do not admit when something is inconclusive or disproven.
Great stuff!
Carry on.
 
tube said:
OK, here we go again. What do you think of this track? Real? Fake? Human? Squatch? Mid-tarsal break or rigid arch?

A cunning fake by a master or a walk on the beach?
Click to expand...

I'll go out on a limb and say the toes are real, the heel is fake. And the mound in the middle would be a good site to build a Jack-in-the-Box for ants.
 
LAL wrote:
So sorry.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much, Lu. Ned sends his thanks also! :)

Hey desertyeti...judging from your attacks on us "BF fans" in posts #871, 874, and 877.......I take it you don't like Bigfoot sighting reports.
That's too bad! :p

desertyeti wrote:
Belivers' (and also trolls') use of this very simple and very silly tactic only drives home the point that they simply do not admit when something is inconclusive or disproven.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to admit to the following....hope it makes you happy....

1) Bigfoot footprint evidence is not conclusive.
2) Bigfoot has not yet been proven to exist.
3) Joyce did not see a bear.
4) Anecdotal evidence...such as sighting reports...are fun to analyse and "weigh". :)
 
Last edited:
LAL said:
It's in the Member's Lounge. Damn. Should be in Cryptozoology.
Click to expand...

Why should the BFF thread about the found Cambodian woman be put in the Cryptozoology section? This woman is a woman, not a potentially "new or hidden" species.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom