Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[Skeptical Greg]

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 guessed you missed where carcharodon explained why the Jack Links sasquatch doesn't look like a real Bigfoot..

You could never fool him ...

 

[kitakaze]

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...

Puff the Magic Dragon was my favourite character as a small child and a stuffed version of him my inseparable companion. *sniff*

When I think of ol' Krantz I have this kind of feeling that I feel guilty calling pity but when I think of him passing without ever having seen a bigfoot. Makes me hope that someone serves us crow tomorrow and gets the last laugh. (OK, talk amongst yourselves, I'm getting a little faklempt.)

 

[LTC8K6]

I guessed you missed where carcharodon explained why the Jack Links sasquatch doesn't look like a real Bigfoot..

You could never fool him ...

Yeah, I've been out of the loop for a while.

We'd have to get the Jack Links guy to pick up a pig and run off with it.....

 

[RayG]

You supported one I only implied.

Yes, I accused you of an appeal to pity, yet you continue to use it anyway. You implied/asserted/pronounced that I made repeated postings regarding Dr. Krantz + Skookum cast:

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.

Yet you are unwilling and unable to provide any proof. In other words, you don't mind stooping low enough to assert an unsupported claim. Where's the beef?

I'm under no obligation to meet any of your demands, but I'll post it if and when I find it.

Well hopefully you can find it so the evidence matches your accusation. In the meantime your ethics leave something to be desired.

Just how would I have known about it if you didn't post it?

Brain fart?

You're the self-styled expert on Krantz around here.

I've never made any such pronouncement, but I have read Krantz. You should too.

It didn't occur to me you wouldn't remember it after making such a big deal about it.

You wouldn't be embellishing again would you LAL?

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

Anything I have written about Dr. Krantz can be verified by a source, and your additional appeal to pity is quite irrelevant to the discussion.

I've posted nearly 3000 times on this board and probably over half were replies to you and Correa.

Yes, but quantity doesn't equate to quality.

We've been over just about everything two to five times already and I am frankly bored.

Then quit bringing up old useless info. Where's all the breaking news about bigfoot?

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.

I'm sick of people bringing up tired old anecdotal accounts, trotting out the Bossburg prints or Skookum cast as though they've been proven to come from a bigfoot, dangling the names of Meldrum, Krantz, Dahinden, Green, Byrne, Fahrenbach, or Noll as though they were bigfoot 'experts', and people who treat science like a disease instead of a method.

Anyone easily offended should check their emotional baggage at the door.

I do agree that Saskeptic is a gem.

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.

IMO folks who like debating bigfoot need to keep four things in mind:

1. Attack the argument, not the person presenting it
2. Don't be ego-strokin' (your own or anyone else's)
3. Be prepared to dig for facts
4. Develop a thick skin

It's become painfully obvious LAL is not interested in debate. As far as I'm concerned LAL has left the building. (she's taken her toys and gone home).

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

snip...Anyone easily offended should check their emotional baggage at the door.

I do agree that Saskeptic is a gem.

IMO folks who like debating bigfoot need to keep four things in mind:

1. Attack the argument, not the person presenting it
2. Don't be ego-strokin' (your own or anyone else's)
3. Be prepared to dig for facts
4. Develop a thick skin

It's become painfully obvious LAL is not interested in debate. As far as I'm concerned LAL has left the building. (she's taken her toys and gone home).

RayG

I'll third the praise of Saskeptic. Good points, Ray. I would say it's useless responding to LAL but I'm not sure it is if only in an indirect way.

LAL, you know what I think of putting people on ignore. I've got to say I'm pretty surprised/disappointed that you decided to ignore Correa, too. It does seem your getting closer to the believers only forum you were hoping for.

If this offends you I'm sorry but I must admit I'm starting to wonder if debate is what you're interested in here. It seems like you're more interested in getting everyone whom you engage to share your belief that sasquatches exist or that they most likely do. As a person who was once an ardent proponent I just can't see how that's realistic considering what we are asked to accept as support for that notion. I don't say that to diminish what you contribute here but never conceding that sasquatches may not exist does. JMHO.

 

[Correa Neto]

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

Bigfeet surely are very hard to track among the forest of peer-reviwed papers...

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.

Your visitor had glowing red eyes? Know of many humans or real animals with such a feature?

Suppose you randomly select a sample of humans from North America. How much variation from the "standard American" would you expect to find? What would be he odds of finding overweight or underweight specimens? 1.8 to 3 m is a 60% size change. Is such a variation expected in adult humans?

Specimen sightings from a given species are quite possibly random events, random choices from variety avaliable at the population. How many underweight or overweight bigfeet are there? How many red, grey, black or brown bigfeet there are? How many of them look like Patty?

And you're wasting mine. 'Bye.

Bye.

Whenever you come back, I hope you may present some reliable evidence to back your case.

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm under no obligation to meet any of your demands, but I'll post it if and when I find it.

What?

You most certainly are under a large obligation to support your specific claim about RayG, or retract it.

If you can't see that, then you are just plain dishonest imo.

You cannot continue to make the claim when you are unable to support it. RayG is not sasquatch.

 

[Correa Neto]

Let's try to get back on track (pun intended).

So, anyone else applied to DY's challenge?

I propose an additional test:
We could take pics of our own footprints and see how much variation there is, and then comopare with the avaliable alleged bigfoot footprint pics. Not very scientific, but may be interesting. Won't be able to create a footpint pic in less than two weeks, however...

 

[kitakaze]

Filters? Um, I should probably mentioned that I am devoid of any and all techno ability, so if that is a reference to a forum technique or something, you lost me...

If you mean filter, as in not buying every report that comes in from certain ecological areas, then yes...I definitely have strong feelings on where I don't think it's possible to have a primate population.

The Great Basin - there are diverse resources but water is a huge limiting factor, so much so, most of the mountains ranges (even though there are many with mixed confer terrain) are sky-islands...ie., so cut off by the lack of water and desert between the mountain ranges that populations are completely isolated. Lots of competition by elk and wild horses/burros. There simply isn't enough habitat or water to support a large primate. Did they ever? I don't know, elk and horses are introduced and I have Native American stories from the GB, so ??

Alaska - Short growing season for plants. Native populations live almost exclusively off of animal protein (from land and sea)....but what does grow in the growing season is extraordinarily rich and diverse. IF there was a population, I would have to hypothesize some very serious fishing abilities (salmon, etc.), very complex structures, and major migration.

Southwest - Water is limiting; plant resources are limited; growing season short; protection from the elements very limited. I can't even see how it's possible.

Other parts of the U.S. are just as diverse as the PNW, especially Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, and parts of Utah (the good parts...). I've traveled and studied those areas, and they are very similar to the PNW. I don't know as much about some other areas, but my studies would suggest that populations are possible in Minnesota/Michigan area, parts of Texas, OK, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, Carolinas, Penn, and the NE...but I am no expert. All I know is that my archaeology friends in those areas are just as proud of their ecosystems as I am of mine....

Thanks again Hairy Man, I just have to point out something ridiculous. From the BFRO via LAL:

Alaska 19
Arizona 38
Arkansas 64
California 347
Colorado 84
Connecticut 4
Delaware 2
Florida 106
Georgia 37
Hawaii
Idaho 49
Illinois 55
Indiana 47
Iowa 35
Kansas 26
Kentucky 46
Louisiana 32
Maine 13
Maryland 25
Massachusetts 10
Michigan 69
Minnesota 27
Mississippi 17
Missouri 52
Montana 23
Nebraska 7
Nevada 7
New Hampshire 9
New Jersey 35
New Mexico 30
New York 84
North Carolina 45
North Dakota 5
Ohio 190
Oklahoma 62
Oregon 197
Pennsylvania 78
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 31
South Dakota 13
Tennessee 51
Texas 160
Utah 38
Vermont 6
Virginia 21
Washington 402
West Virginia 45
Wisconsin 41
Wyoming 24

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/#usa

 

[SweatyYeti]

Beautiful post, Ray.......I love it...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

Originally Posted by kitakaze

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

What makes them LIKELY?

Because...


Originally Posted by kitakaze

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]
• 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?

Ray's post epitomizes the approach to Bigfoot evidence that the skeptics here take.
Note his use of the word possible...and how he does NOT use the word probable.

Like I said yesterday.....

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.

Go back and read previous posts by skeptics like Ray, kitakaze, Blackdog and Greg...and you'll notice that almost NEVER have they referred to, analysed, or discussed Bigfoot evidence in terms of "probabilities", "likeliness" or in terms of "weight".
It's ONLY referred to in terms of "possibilities".

More on this later.

BTW, Ray....I haven't "eliminated all possibilities but two".
I've asked you a few times for a reason as to why I, or anyone else, should consider any of those "possible" explanations to be a "likely" explanation.

You haven't supplied any. Until you do...you haven't contributed anything of value to this discussion, whatsoever.

Do you expect to give us ANY reasons...in the near future...to think that any one of those is a probable explanation?

 

[kitakaze]

Fascinating, Sweaty. I was wondering what you might attempt next. You might want to try and sort out your unintelligible quoting methods.

 

[Spektator]

So...for those that missed the first go-round, and for those who want to try it again:

1 through 5.
Which is (are) real?
Which is (are) forgeries?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1050645c7b40a7c606.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1050645c7b4161088f.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1050645c7b41ea2c59.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1050645c7b4271f2eb.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1050645c7b42fe0c4b.jpg[/qimg]

PM is you want the answer, or else, I'll post results in a couple of days as per last time.
Good luck to all who care to weigh in.

Don't know how many PMs you got, and if you replied, I missed it, but the only one that looks really fake to me is the last one (which probably means it's the only real one!). Numbers 2 and 3 sort of remind me of the North Carolina "Ox Creek Bugger" prints from several years back though.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

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

First...I've never used the phrase "reliable evidence"...because it doesn't mean anything to me.

Evidence is evidence...period. It doesn't need to be "relied upon"...or "depended on"...or "authenticated"...or "proven" to be called evidence.
It's just evidence........not proof.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "evidence"?

I still don't understand your description of "reliable" evidence.
Can you explain how you think "dependable" relates to Bigfoot evidence?
Can you explain how you think the other terms relate to Bigfoot evidence?

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, Sweaty, would you care to comment on whether or not you intentionally alter and manipulate quotes to suit your purposes? You do know that such behaviour is regarded as major no-no here and one of the quickest ways to reduce your credibility to below zero, right?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I was wondering what you might attempt next.

And NOW you know!

 

[kitakaze]

First...I've never used the phrase "reliable evidence"...because it doesn't mean anything to me.

Evidence is evidence...period. It doesn't need to be "relied upon"...or "depended on"...or "authenticated"...or "proven" to be called evidence.
It's just evidence...not proof.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "evidence"?

I still don't understand your description of "reliable" evidence.
Can you explain how you think "dependable" relates to Bigfoot evidence?
Can you explain how you think the other terms relate to Bigfoot evidence?

Semantics seems to be some kind of irresistable pathological thing with you, doesn't it, Sweaty? You have elsewhere claimed that there is plenty of evidence for bigfoot but what doesn't seem to ever dawn on you is that indeed there is plenty of evidence attributed to bigfoot but evidence that can be connected to bigfoot? Not so much. Which is to say none.

Question, Kevin:

Do you believe without doubt or question that bigfoot exists?

 

[kitakaze]

Oh, another thing, Sweaty. Do you plan on squirming quite a bit more with this?:

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.

 

[Blackdog]

First...I've never used the phrase "reliable evidence"...because it doesn't mean anything to me.

That's pretty much the meat of it, isn't it? Belief is not reality, that's the difference between you and clear thinking individuals.

 

[Blackdog]

More on this later.

I thought there was going to be more on other stuff later? Are you keeping track of all this?

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, Ray....I haven't "eliminated all possibilities but two".

Oh really?

But for her to bother picking-up the phone and making a long-distance call to a total stranger...there HAS to be a reason...and there are ONLY 2 possible reasons....
1) To share an amazing experience with someone who also believes Bigfoot exists...and who she would get a positive response from.
2) To lie through her teeth to a stranger, when she probably had better things to do.

I've eliminated all possibilities but two:
1) You are lying.

2) Faulty memory.

Which is it, Kevin?