Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[RayG]

Sweaty, if you're old enough to work, I seriously hope you don't work with anything related to law enforcement or the justice system.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

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".

The flailing is rather pathetic. Is it really troubling you so much or will you just admit that your messing around because you can do no better?

Willful dishonesty, mistaken identity, or faulty memory are likely explanations given that Joyce claims to have seen a creature for which there is no reliable evidence.

You know, Sweaty, if you really want to stick it to the man so bad why don't you direct our attention to the aforementioned reliable evidence. You seem to think your pinhead demonstration qualifies. Why not get to work on that than continuing pursuing a matter which is proving quite embarrassing for any future opinions you might want to share here?

ETA: No, Kevin. I attend the School of Hard Knocks Reality where I learnt to say, "why the hell should I think it's frickin' bigfoot."

You're welcome to enroll if you ever make it out of the woo-woo pen.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Willful dishonesty, mistaken identity, or faulty memory are likely explanations

What makes them LIKELY?

Note: kitakaze will not be able to answer this simple question.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You seem to think your pinhead demonstration qualifies.

You're right.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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".

The flailing is rather pathetic. Is it really troubling you...

It's more trouble for you than it is for me, kitakaze.
I noticed you didn't supply any reasons in your posts.

For the sake of the readers...I like to make a point of a skeptic's total lack of supportive reasoning.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

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

Can you elaborate on those statements a little? I don't understand what you mean.

Forget me, why should anyone here whom your sharing the anecdote with think that Joyce saw a real bigfoot?

I already gave the reasons why.

Is there some reliable evidence of bigfoot we're unaware of or should we just take Joyce's or your word for it?

What exactly do you mean by "reliable" evidence?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I attend the School of Hard Knocks Reality

Oh...I thought you graduated with High Honors from
the School of Insults, Babble, and Duckin' Dodgin' Reasons.

 

[RayG]

Willful dishonesty, mistaken identity, or faulty memory are likely explanations

What makes them LIKELY?

Because...

Joyce claims to have seen a creature for which there is no reliable evidence.

Plus the fact that Joyce has nothing further to offer as far as evidential support for the bigfoot possibility.

Is it possible she and her daughter saw bigfoot? Sure. Without further info, it's also possible Joyce was affected by:

• 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]

These are all things/conditions/factors that are known to exist and affect people and their perception of events. It's interesting how you dismiss these things outright and steadfastly cling to an unsupported bigfoot claim.

By what method/manner have you eliminated all possibilities but two?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

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".

The all caps and ellipsis abuse does little to obscure your habitual obfuscation, Sweaty. The whole point of a discussion board is ... ... ... DISCUSSION. What type of discussion board is the JREF?

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.

This being a skeptic's board someone coming here wishing to support the position 'bigfoot exists' would be best advised to come directing our attention to reliable evidence supporting that position if the sincerely wish to be taken seriously and are not simply trolling.

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.

Clouds showing no sign of lifting, huh? The people addressing you are telling you there's no reason whatsoever to think Joyce saw a bigfoot over another mundane reason. Have any good reason for us to change our thinking? No? I didn't think so. Next.

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

More confusion. You whine about this a lot, Kevin. The reasonable adults here are discussing the testing and verification of reliable evidence, such as dermatoglyphics, expert's track assessment abilities.

What do you offer? What is this valuable actual analysis of yours you speak of? Is it Joyce? Why yes it is. And that is why you can fairly be considered the most hopeless person on this entire board posting about bigfoot. Go ahead, I dare you. Try questioning what Ray, myself, or others have contributed of value to the discussion beyond engaging you in your woo-woo games. You'll only embarrass yourself further.

What exactly is it you seek to accomplish by posting here, Kevin. Is it that you would like skeptics to consider the possibility of bigfoot existing? Too late, we already do that. Is it that we should consider it likely? If so how do you think you might achieve that? Surely you must realize by now it has nothing to do with Joyce.

 

[kitakaze]

What makes them LIKELY?

Note: kitakaze will not be able to answer this simple question.

I told you not to mess around with quotes. Try to quit the squirming and manipulation and include the full sentence. Your answer is there. Here it is again:

Willful dishonesty, mistaken identity, or faulty memory are likely explanations given that Joyce claims to have seen a creature for which there is no reliable evidence.

 

[RayG]

Oh...I thought you graduated with High Honors from the School of Insults, Babble, and Duckin' Dodgin' Reasons.

That was after I graduated from the Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics Engineering back in '76. How about you Kevin, are you out of high school yet?

What exactly do you mean by "reliable" evidence?

I'm guessing he means evidence that is dependable, consistent, authentic, and accurate. What do you mean by reliable evidence? An anecdotal account from Joyce?

So far no reliable evidence exists for bigfoot. Wishful-thinking won't change that.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

You're right.

As in not always wrong?

It's more trouble for you than it is for me, kitakaze.
I noticed you didn't supply any reasons in your posts.

For the sake of the readers...I like to make a point of a skeptic's total lack of supportive reasoning.

Not a nice try but I'm sure you'll keep doing it.

 

[kitakaze]

Can you elaborate on those statements a little? I don't understand what you mean.

If you're not up to your usual games and you really don't understand then you can start by telling us why the reasons we gave for Joyce not seeing a real bigfoot as likely are in fact unlikely. Unless you are continuing to deny we've given you those reasons.

I already gave the reasons why.

No, you didn't, Kevin. You gave reasons why you yourself believe, not why any of the rational thinking people here should join you in your beliefs.

What exactly do you mean by "reliable" evidence?

Wow. It doesn't take Kevin long to make his predictable plays for semantic quibbling when under pressure.

 

[LAL]

Duplicate post.

 

[LAL]

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

You supported one I only implied.

Still waiting for that link.

I'm under no obligation to meet any of your demands, but I'll post it if and when I find it. It may turn up on a Google search where I won't get error messages for too few letters in a word.

Just how would I have known about it if you didn't post it? You're the self-styled expert on Krantz around here. It didn't occur to me you wouldn't remember it after making such a big deal about it.

In the meantime, here's an obit on the scientist you keep trying to discredit.

A student of Sasquatch, Prof. Grover Krantz, dies

Monday, February 18, 2002

By TOM PAULSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Bigfoot has lost its most credible and powerful advocate.

Grover Krantz, a professor of anthropology at Washington State University and a widely recognized expert on human evolution, died four days ago of pancreatic cancer at his home in Sequim. He was 70.


Dr. Grover Krantz, authority on human evolution
While few outside the field of anthropology may know of his significant scientific accomplishments in evolutionary theory, many know of his work on Bigfoot or Sasquatch -- the hairy, humanoid, extra-large ape-like creature that some contend exists in the shadowy forests of the Pacific Northwest.

"Within the established academic community, Grover was the first one to stick his neck out," said Loren Coleman, a cryptozoologist (one who studies creatures not yet officially identified) at the University of Southern Maine in Portland.

Because of Krantz' credentials and accomplishments as an anthropologist, Coleman said, his contention that there was sufficient evidence to suggest Bigfoot might exist could not be so easily dismissed.

"He's a world authority on human evolution," said Donald Tyler, chairman of anthropology at the University of Idaho in Moscow and a former student of Krantz. "I don't think Bigfoot exists. But Grover didn't deserve the kind of treatment he got for pursuing this question. ... He was severely criticized for it."

Krantz did believe Bigfoot -- or Sasquatch, as the Salish Indians called this woodland "wild man" -- probably exists. When he first arrived to teach anthropology at WSU in 1968, he was asked to look at some extremely large footprints found up near Colville. Krantz made casts and studied them, expecting them to be a hoax.

But, as an expert on the bone structure of primates, he found telltale evidence in the footprint of compensation for broken bones. Krantz didn't think anyone attempting a hoax could have constructed such an elaborate detail. Later, looking at similar prints in the Blue Mountains near Walla Walla, he found "dermal ridges" -- the lines in the skin that also create fingerprints -- on footprint casts.

"He thought the evidence couldn't have been faked," Tyler said. "I sometimes think he was too smart for his own good."

Krantz liked to challenge the status quo, his former student said, and refused to become a member of any particular school of thought in anthropology -- an unusual and risky approach in this frequently cantankerous field. Doing so, Tyler said, allowed him the freedom he desired for poking and prodding at sacred cows.

For example, many in the scientific community used to believe a fossil primate from about 14 million years ago known as Ramapithicus was the first branch of the ape family to diverge and eventually evolve into humans. Krantz helped prove this false.

"He challenged a lot of theories in anthropology that turned out to not be so solid," Tyler said.

But Krantz' challenge on Bigfoot provoked more than scientific debate. It created unwelcome controversy and allegations of "fringe science" that Tyler said cost him some promotions and almost prevented him from getting a tenured post at WSU.

"Most of us didn't agree with him that his evidence was very good," said Bill Lipe, professor emeritus of anthropology at WSU. But it wasn't the public controversy over Bigfoot that hurt Krantz professionally, Lipe said.

"He couldn't publish his articles on Bigfoot in peer-reviewed journals, and he didn't seek the research grants," Lipe said. Because of all the time he devoted to Bigfoot, he said, Krantz wasn't as able to do what he needed to secure promotions and tenure.

"The evidence never got any better," Lipe said. "Grover, to his credit, always approached this as a scientist. He wanted to make sure this theory, however unpopular, got a hearing. In taking on this role, I think he lost his skepticism."

Jeff Meldrum, a professor of anthropology and primate anatomy expert at Idaho State University in Pocatello, thinks it's the scientific community that has lost something in its rejection of Krantz' work on Bigfoot -- objectivity and an open mind.

"Were it not for Grover, all this would have simply been dismissed," said Meldrum.

Though it certainly remains unproven that a creature like Bigfoot does exist, Meldrum said it is the obligation of scientists to consider all the evidence.

It's worth noting that 19 new species of primates have been discovered in South America since 1980, he said, and that there are huge swaths of land in the Northwest where people seldom go.

Added Coleman: "Grover used to try to help people understand this by reminding them of all the bears, mountain lions and other animals we know are in the woods but never see. How many people have run across a dead bear in the forest even though we know there are many thousands of bear?"

Krantz is survived by his wife, Diane Horton, and a stepson, Dural Horton. The semi-retired professor published 10 books and more than 60 scientific articles. Krantz donated his body to the Smithsonian Institution for research purposes and asked that no memorial service be held. Donations can be made to Hospice of Clallam County in Port Angeles.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/58730_grover18.shtml

I've posted nearly 3000 times on this board and probably over half were replies to you and Correa. We've been over just about everything two to five times already and I am frankly bored. If Correa wants to talk mythology, he should take it up with the expert, Hairy Man. That I would like to see. Your posts are no longer worth a reply, IMHO.

I'm sick of the attitudes. Some of you would do well to emulate Saskeptic on BFF. He raises good, intelligent points, and doesn't get obnoxious. The one time I saw things get out of hand, he apologized for his part in it. That's good debate. Everybody learns and no one gets hurt.

Don't bother to reply. There will be four on my filter list here (there are none on BFF) within the next two minutes. There are plenty more where you came from, so don't think I'll have a choir to preach to. Ciao.

 

[kitakaze]

In the meantime, here's an obit on the scientist you keep trying to discredit...

LAL, I don't understand what the inclusion of an obituary for Prof. Krantz has to do with the discussion.

 

[LAL]

LAL, I don't understand what the inclusion of an obituary for Prof. Krantz has to do with the discussion.

Read it. Maybe then you'll understand.

 

[kitakaze]

Read it. Maybe then you'll understand.

I did. I don't see where Ray was trying to discredit Krantz as a scientist or how his obituary serves as reliable evidence for bigfoot. I've always had a certain admiration for the man but I do think I agree with this:

"The evidence never got any better," Lipe said. "Grover, to his credit, always approached this as a scientist. He wanted to make sure this theory, however unpopular, got a hearing. In taking on this role, I think he lost his skepticism."

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm just waiting for that Jack Links sasquatch suit to be used by someone.

Modify it enough so it looks different than the one in the commercials and you could probably shoot PGF all over again.

The suckers would be lining up to hand you their cash.....

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Bigfoot has lost its most credible and powerful advocate.

LAL, I don't understand what the inclusion of an obituary for Prof. Krantz has to do with the discussion.

Perhaps Lu's post deserves a little more thought ..

I believe the excerpt above could provide one of the more profound insights into footery we have seen in a while ..

Anyone recall the song " Puff The Magic Dragon " ?

When little Jackie Paper stopped believing, the dragon ceased to exist ..

Perhaps the passing of a believer could have the same affect ..



Lu's fallacious appeal to pity only serves to emphasize the total lack of credible evidence in matters Sas...

 

[kitakaze]

I'm just waiting for that Jack Links sasquatch suit to be used by someone.

Modify it enough so it looks different than the one in the commercials and you could probably shoot PGF all over again.

The suckers would be lining up to hand you their cash.....

I checked the website and the water dish bit is hilarious. It'd be interesting if before releasing those ads they pulled some publicity stunt with that suit.

Imagine this:

First the suit is altered so that the claws and fangs are gone and there're no whites showing in the eyes. A scene is shot from a boat at dusk of some lonely PNW beach where we can hear the excited whispers of the people on board and though there's a bit of poor camcorder handling the camera every so often zooms in and out and we can clearly see the creature digging for clams on the beach. The whispering turns to louder exclamations and the creature breaking from it's activity begins beating it's chest and then clumsily but forcefully begins tossing stones from the beach toward the boat. It then retreats to the tree line and for a moment stands half obscure by a tree and then disappears. A few minutes later we hear shrill screams from the forest...