Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LAL]

Ah, footprints! Hair samples that are not from the critter that was reported!

It's much easier to track an animal through peer reviewed literature than through its habitat. Go right on doing that.

The variations are no more than would be expected in a variable species. We have tall, skinny individuals with grey hair too; I had dinner with one last night.

Not buying. You are wasting your time.

And you're wasting mine. 'Bye.

 

[RayG]

And you're wasting mine. 'Bye.

An additional filtered participant perhaps? LAL takes another step closer to preaching and further away from debate.

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...Tell you what, let's make a list of things that would start getting our attention and get people to start taking the subject seriously. Just quote this and add to the list. I'll start with the obvious:

1. A clear video or still image of good quality and reliable pedigree.

OK, K. asked for my contribution, here it is:

To (1) I would also say that if the pics or footage can be reproduced by an independent party, from a similar animal or group of animals, roughly at the same place, it may be considered "proof".

2. DNA analisys (blood, hair, scat, etc.) indicating an unknown hominid genus, preferably from a sample not obtained by some Marx, Biscardi or Freeman-types;

3. Remains of an ape-like animal (better if bipedal and standing above 1.8m high) found at North America, from a time frame coincident with human colonization. Might constitute "proof" if young enough (say, after European settlers).

4. A specimen, living or dead, complete or partial. This would be "proof". I would be happy if bigfoot gave me the finger (nice news title for World Weekly News).

That's my take.

 

[RayG]

You used the phrase..."psychologically manufactured".
I'm translating it into "nutcase"....or delusional.

Why am I not surprised.

How goes the reading? Have you covered any of the following yet?

• perceptual construction
• memory construction
• false memory syndrome
• confabulation
• effects of stress
• impact of expectancy and belief
• selective attention
• misjudgment of probabilities
• subjective validation
• altered states of consciousness
• poor observational conditions (limited visibility, bad lighting, faint stimuli, etc. etc.)
• alcohol
• drugs
• fatigue
• pareidolia
• cryptomnesia
  [SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
• generation effect[/SIZE]

Yeah... I didn't think so.

RayG

 

[LAL]

I remember discussions of Meldrum not being impressed with the cast.

That's not what I'm referring to. Those would be misrepresentations based on one statement, clarified by Jeff himself on BFF.

He cleaned it, he endorsed it and he was gratified Dr. Swindler agreed with his interpretation of the heel.

I'm thinking it was around the time of the Leonardo Da Vinci comment discussion on the PGF thread around a year ago. That one was easy to source; it was from an article by Dennett.

The posts may just not all be indexed yet. There are other things I'm not finding that should be here.

Dr. Krantz was convinced enough by the cast to so state on Animal Planet, at any rate. Since the quote we found was from an ever-reliable reporter, I prefer the words from Dr. Krantz' own mouth "as seen on TV".

He hadn't started wasting away yet, although he looked old and sick. I lost a good friend to pancreatic cancer last year. He died in agony six months or so after diagnosis. It's not a fun disease.

 

[LAL]

An additional filtered participant perhaps? LAL takes another step closer to preaching and further away from debate.

RayG

No, he's not filtered and I took you off (temporarily) last night. I wouldn't have stooped low enough to actually find that "appeal to pity" post. Thanks for going to the trouble.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.......

He hadn't started wasting away yet, although he looked old and sick. I lost a good friend to pancreatic cancer last year. He died in agony six months or so after diagnosis. It's not a fun disease.

Can you please tie this in to the search for a non-human North American primate ?


No ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
You used the phrase..."psychologically manufactured".
I'm translating it into "nutcase"....or delusional.

Why am I not surprised.

How goes the reading? Have you covered any of the following yet?

• perceptual construction
• memory construction
• false memory syndrome
• confabulation
• effects of stress
• impact of expectancy and belief
• selective attention
• misjudgment of probabilities
• subjective validation
• altered states of consciousness
• poor observational conditions (limited visibility, bad lighting, faint stimuli, etc. etc.)
• alcohol
• drugs
• fatigue
• pareidolia
• cryptomnesia[SIZE=-1]
• generation effect[/SIZE]

Nice list, Ray. What the hell's your point?

My reading is going swell....thanks for asking. I'm almost half-way through "My Favorite Yeti" by Dewey Daydream.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

A specimen, living or dead, complete or partial. This would be "proof".

I totally agree!

 

[Blackdog]

Here's a fresh example....from Blackdog....concerning "Bob H in the suit"...

It certainly COULD have been someone else....that IS a "possibility".
BUT....is that a LIKELY scenario?
Did Blackdog provide ANY REASON why we should consoder that to be LIKELY....or PROBABLE?

NO...he didn't. He just threw out a "possibility". That's the FULL EXTENT of a skeptic's "analysis".

Well ya got me... nope, there is no reason anyone else should be considered at all. Let's do the math...the US population in 1967 was around 200,000,000 and for the sake of argument we'll eliminate, Patterson, Gimlin, Bob H, and the dead red horse....that leaves only about 199,999,996 more suspects. Ya got me.

What the hell are you arguing anyway? That it was a real bigfoot? Geez there's an original line of thinking. In 40 years I don't think anyone has tried to argue that...got anything new?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Basic psychology isn't of much interest to where it concerns bigfoot is it, Sweaty? That's not surprising given what a desire to believe does to your judgement. Let's see... so all people that have a clear memory of an event that didn't occur are psychotic? I remember very clearly about 20 years ago when I was 9 seeing what I thought was a ghost. I can visualize details quite vividly, it was quite alarming to say the least. Never happened. Last time checked, I was doing alright. Then again, ThAZZ wOT thEE... REell nuTJoBBZ ALL WAYz sEY...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Imagining "possiblities", without giving ANY reason why those possibilities should be considered PROBABLE explanations is simply NOT analysis of evidence...in this case Joyce's report and phone call to me.
All that amounts to is saying "it could be anything". That's how skeptics "analyse" Bigfoot evidence, by throwing out possibilities.

Give us one good reason why we should think Joyce saw a real bigfoot and look twice before posting.

I already have given reasons why I think Joyce's report is the absolute truth....that is....that she not only THINKS she and her daughter saw a Bigfoot creature...but that they actually DID see one.

Did you read what I wrote several days ago, when I gave those reasons?

When are you going to give the readers of this thread a reason..or two...to think that some other POSSIBLE explanation is also a LIKELY explanation? Never?

You seem to be having a major problem with that, kitakaze.

It's so easy to propose "possibilities", and so difficult to explain why they should be considered "probabilities".

This is where the skeptics fall flat on their faces. When it comes to anything more than coughing-up "possible explanations"....they fail.....completely.

Look at Ray's wonderful list he just posted.
He provides "possible" explanations....without a WORD as to why any one of them has ANY degree of likelihood of being the true explanation for Joyce's sighting and phone call.

And will he ever provide some reasons? NO........he won't.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Blackdog wrote:

Well ya got me... nope, there is no reason anyone else should be considered at all.

You've provided no reasons to consider anyone else in particular.
Therefore...I have no reason to consider anyone else a likely candidate.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE that someone else was in the "suit"....but the fact that he never came forward despite how famous the film became...gives me a reason to think that's not a LIKELY scenario.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Blackdog wrote:

What the hell are you arguing anyway? That it was a real bigfoot? Geez there's an original line of thinking. In 40 years I don't think anyone has tried to argue that...got anything new?

I have a new yo-yo. It goes up and down. I like yo-yo's.

 

[RayG]

I wouldn't have stooped low enough to actually find that "appeal to pity" post.

But you don't mind stooping low enough to assert an unsupported claim? Ummm, ok.

Hint...

Despite RayG's repeated posting of an article that had Grover Krantz saying he didn't know what it (the Skookum Cast) was, he most empathically stated on camera he agreed with the others.

Still waiting for that link.

Nice list, Ray. What the hell's your point?

Whoosh...

That there is a lengthy list of possibilities other than a) Joyce saw a bigfoot, b) Joyce is lying, c) Joyce is delusional.

If you'd read anything about memory, perception, or the brain, you might have realized that.

My reading is going swell....thanks for asking. I'm almost half-way through "My Favorite Yeti" by Dewey Daydream.

You might want to try the non-fiction section of the library.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

RayG wrote:
Nice list, Ray. What the hell's your point?

I already have given reasons why I think Joyce's report is the absolute truth....that is....that she not only THINKS she and her daughter saw a Bigfoot creature...but that they actually DID see one.

Did you read what I wrote several days ago, when I gave those reasons?

No, Kevin. I'm afraid I missed a good reason why she saw a real bigfoot among any of your um, musings so far.

When are you going to give the readers of this thread a reason..or two...to think that some other POSSIBLE explanation is also a LIKELY explanation? Never?

You seem to be having a major problem with that, kitakaze.

The only one having a major problem is you, Sweaty, which would be trying to convince anyone to take you seriously.

I've given two additional possible explanations in your pathetic woo-woo game based on faulty memory. They are only possibilities given a lack of verified information on the claimed 23 year old event but such that fall well within the bounds of reasoning. We have plenty of proof of faulty memory, do you have any proof of bigfoot?

It's so easy to propose "possibilities", and so difficult to explain why they should be considered "probabilities".

Such as Joyce saw a real bigfoot?

This is where the skeptics fall flat on their faces. When it comes to anything more than coughing-up "possible explanations"....they fail.....completely.

Look at Ray's wonderful list he just posted.
He provides "possible" explanations....without a WORD as to why any one of them has ANY degree of likelihood of being the true explanation for Joyce's sighting and phone call.

And will he ever provide some reasons? NO........he won't.

You really are to far gone with this. OK, anyone who doesn't think so please speak up.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

That there is a lengthy list of possibilities other than a) Joyce saw a bigfoot, b) Joyce is lying, c) Joyce is delusional.

If you'd read anything about memory, perception, or the brain, you might have realized that.

I agree with you that there are many POSSIBILE explanations for a Bigfoot sighting.
If you read my post, from a little while ago, you'd realize that....

Look at Ray's wonderful list he just posted.
He provides "possible" explanations....without a WORD as to why any one of them has ANY degree of likelihood of being the true explanation for Joyce's sighting and phone call.

And will he ever provide some reasons? NO........he won't.

The whole point of a discussion board is for people to discuss a subject, with an objective....to find out the truth, or at least narrow down the possibilities in order to get a better picture of what is MOST LIKELY to be the truth. This involves "weighing the evidence".
In the case of Bigfoot evidence....it requires more than people posting in threads saying "it COULD be this" or "it COULD be that".
We don't need a discussion board to figure that there are many "possibilities" with regards to Bigfoot evidence.

Ray, kitakaze, and Blackdog think that it's good enough to say "it could be anything from A to Z", without getting into the probabilities of any of those possible explanations being the truth.

That's fine, if that's what they prefer to do...it's a free world.
But posts that offer nothing in the way of actual analysis are of no real value.
Which begs the question......

Why join a discussion board in the first place if one has no interest in contributuing anything of value?

Could it be that they post here simply for the sake of Skepticism itself?

It's certainly a POSSIBILITY.

 

[SweatyYeti]

A fresh example of what I just talked about...FRESH out of kitakaze's oven....

I've given two additional possible explanations

Without any support. Thank you Kitakaze!

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

do you have any proof of bigfoot?

No.
Do we need "proof" to analyse "evidence"?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

No, Kevin. I'm afraid I missed a good reason why she saw a real bigfoot among any of your um, musings so far.

I provided reasons.
Whether you think they're good or bad is irrelevant. I really don't care what your take on them is.
Everybody is free to make their own judgement on the reasons I gave.

But you will not...for some strange reason....provide reasons, from your perspective, as to why we should think those other explanations are LIKELY explanations.
All you and your fellow skeptics can do is provide "possibilities".....from the "Big Bag of Possibilities".

Good boy, kitakaze......did you go to a special school to learn how to say "it could be anything"?

 

[kitakaze]

I provided reasons.
Whether you think they're good or bad is irrelevant. I really don't care what your take on them is.
Everybody is free to make their own judgement on the reasons I gave.

Yet what you might think of reasons involving faulty memory are relevant? You certainly care what my take on those are.

You seem to be quite confused, let's try again. Forget me, why should anyone here whom your sharing the anecdote with think that Joyce saw a real bigfoot? Is there some reliable evidence of bigfoot we're unaware of or should we just take Joyce's or your word for it?