Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

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

Oh, you know, Patty the Pinhead, semantic gymnastics, quote manipulation, woo-capades, obfuscation, ellipsis/all caps abuse... busy, busy, busy.

 

[Hairy Man]

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

Well, several things to point out. Most of the good stuff isn't published; lots of stuff published is crap (especially since the mass exodus). I should also note that I used geographic areas, like Great Basin, instead of states because there are border areas with excellent habitat (like where Nevada and California meet at Lake Tahoe).

As far as other BFFers coming here, I'd have to say it isn't likely. We can fuss over there too.

 

[kitakaze]

Well, several things to point out. Most of the good stuff isn't published; lots of stuff published is crap (especially since the mass exodus). I should also note that I used geographic areas, like Great Basin, instead of states because there are border areas with excellent habitat (like where Nevada and California meet at Lake Tahoe).

As far as other BFFers coming here, I'd have to say it isn't likely. We can fuss over there too.

Hi, Hairy Man. Please don't take this the wrong way but what exactly is 'the good stuff' and why isn't it made public? BTW, the vast majority of those numbers were there long before the 'mass exodus'.

ETA: How do you differentiate between what's 'good stuff' and what's 'crap'?

 

[RayG]

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.

You mean as opposed to the romantics who think anything and everything was probably caused by bigfoot?

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".

Yes, and until you provide something worthwhile, that's how it works. Your elevated levels of hope or wishful-thinking won't change that.

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

Ah, you've progressed then?

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.

Work on those observational skills a bit more wouldja Sweaty...

Here, I'll toss it out again:

These are all things/conditions/factors that are known to exist and affect people and their perception of events.

Wanna share with us how you've eliminated them?

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

Hey, toss out a validly constructed argument and we can discuss it. Your romanticism/logically-flawed statements won't fly here.

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

Let us know how you've eliminated all other possible explanations. An anecdotal account from Joyce don't cut the mustard.

RayG

 

[RayG]

How do you differentiate between what's 'good stuff' and what's 'crap'?

A phone call?

RayG

 

[Hairy Man]

Hi, Hairy Man. Please don't take this the wrong way but what exactly is 'the good stuff' and why isn't it made public? BTW, the vast majority of those numbers were there long before the 'mass exodus'.

ETA: How do you differentiate between what's 'good stuff' and what's 'crap'?

The mass exodus happened more than a year ago, and prior to that time there was a concerted effort to not allow the crap reports to be published. Since July of 2005, those friends of mine still in the group have told me that they are pushed to publish everything if it's a good story. I don't know how many that adds up too, but it's significant (although I'm sure crap reports slipped through before).

Crap reports - "bad feelings" "smells" "strange sounds" "flashes of brown"

Good reports not published - they weren't published because either the witness didn't want it make public or the investigator was guarding the area. For example, if I was working a "hot" area, I didn't necessarily want the public to know because then they might go to those locations themselves (for me, it was an issue of not wanting people intentionally or unintentionally hoaxing data, etc.). A good report, as an example, would included a biologist that I worked with that was confronted by a upright bipedal animal on a trail. He didn't want it made public because he felt details of the event could lead back to him.

(and no RayG, it's not a phone call that determines a good report vs. bad...it's if you paid your fee for the expedition.....)

 

[kitakaze]

The mass exodus happened more than a year ago, and prior to that time there was a concerted effort to not allow the crap reports to be published. Since July of 2005, those friends of mine still in the group have told me that they are pushed to publish everything if it's a good story. I don't know how many that adds up too, but it's significant (although I'm sure crap reports slipped through before).

Crap reports - "bad feelings" "smells" "strange sounds" "flashes of brown"

Having followed the BFRO since 1998 I'm quite familiar with the intricasies of the 'mass exodus'. Prior to that how would you compare the A, B, and C classification system with your definition of crap reports? Again, prior to the 'exodus' archived reports reflected the support of a continent-wide bigfoot.

Good reports not published - they weren't published because either the witness didn't want it make public or the investigator was guarding the area. For example, if I was working a "hot" area, I didn't necessarily want the public to know because then they might go to those locations themselves (for me, it was an issue of not wanting people intentionally or unintentionally hoaxing data, etc.). A good report, as an example, would included a biologist that I worked with that was confronted by a upright bipedal animal on a trail. He didn't want it made public because he felt details of the event could lead back to him.

A witness fearing repercussions and specific area information has always been addressed by the BFRO in filing reports whether it was law enforcement, military, goverment worker, etc, etc. And what exactly made the biologist's report good? Because they were a biologist? Because there was evidence of the encounter? Does you mentioning familiarity with the claimant and being an archaeologist make it good? What is the result of having these good unpublished reports? Are they better than any other anecdote?

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask- what makes an area 'hot'? Are they static? If not, why? What have these hot areas offered in terms of reliable evidence(please do not read proof) for bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

An area is hot when no one is there looking for bigfoot. When people go there to find bigfoot, the area becomes cold.

 

[kitakaze]

zing!

 

[Hairy Man]

Hairy Man, I'm sorry, I forgot to ask- what makes an area 'hot'?

Cause I'm there! LOL! Just kidding...couldn't help myself.

A location is determined to be "hot", when multiple recent (within a month or so of each other) reports are reported in the same area by different witnesses and in which those reports are not appearing in the newspaper (i.e., I personally do not consider an area hot when a single sighting makes the paper and everyone and their mother suddenly comes forward with their "sightings").

Are they static? If not, why? What have these hot areas offered in terms of reliable evidence(please do not read proof) for bigfoot?

I'm taking static to mean it doesn't change...so no, "hot" areas are not static, areas can be hot and then not hot due to a variety of reasons. 1) witnesses stop coming forward due to pressure or fear; 2) if bigfoot is a real creature, one would expect it to move based on pressures, seasons, etc. and activity stops; 3) it was all crap anyway, and the witness are bored with making false reports.

As for reliable evidence, I can only offer my own experiences with "hot" areas. In the Lake Tahoe area, we got recordings, including the Tahoe Scream (analyzed by Cornell University) and some footcasts. In Sonora area, we have a nest that may/may not be related to a unknown primate and footcasts. And that's it that I can think of cause either the evidence is still in the freezer or it's only reliable to me.

 

[Hairy Man]

Prior to that how would you compare the A, B, and C classification system with your definition of crap reports? Again, prior to the 'exodus' archived reports reflected the support of a continent-wide bigfoot.

Oh, I get what you're saying. Yes, prior to the exodus there were and still are reports from area that in my opinion couldn't support a bigfoot population.

A witness fearing repercussions and specific area information has always been addressed by the BFRO in filing reports whether it was law enforcement, military, goverment worker, etc, etc. And what exactly made the biologist's report good? Because they were a biologist? Because there was evidence of the encounter? Does you mentioning familiarity with the claimant and being an archaeologist make it good? What is the result of having these good unpublished reports? Are they better than any other anecdote?

The report was good because the gentleman has a Ph.D. in wildlife biology; the animal was only about 10 feet from him; he saw clear details of it's face and body; it was in the daylight; I visited personally with the witness and went to the location (about two weeks had passed; I didn't see any prints or anything); and I knew a biologist friend of his, whom the witness had told and who directed him to me. The mutual friend and the witness are well respected biologists with numerous peer-reviewed publications.

The results of having good non-public reports are only useful to those who know the reports; otherwise they aren't helpful because you can't read them and evaluate them yourself. I have more private reports than the one I mentioned above, three of which came to me after the BFRO that are from professionals (engineer, fisheries biologist, and a hydrologist) and while I repeatedly ask to make them public, they request I don't. So, long story short...they are of no use because they can not be questioned by the general public.

 

[LAL]

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.

We've gone on for many pages on many threads. I'm just tired of going over the same old stuff again and again. I don't have time to spend hours on his posts, especially when he knows what I think if he's bothered to read mine. When everything's been indexed you should have no trouble finding what I've said in the past. Just put in "fossils", "roadkill", "midtarsal" or "mythology".

I should have realized sooner that when Huntster stopped engaging him, I'd get him again. I shouldn't have responded at all.

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.

If I wasn't interested in debate, why did I hang around for 2,299 posts? (Correction: I misread the figure earlier. I thought it said 2,995. I'm still feeling very rocky and should be back in bed with a book and a cup of Theraflu instead of sitting in a cold computer corner trying to defend myself.)

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.

Why should I do that when I don't think that's true? Do I demand sceptics admit they could exist?

I'm interested in the information being presented acurately, at least. It bothers me that people who get their arguments from Dennett, Daegling and Radford don't seem to apply the scepticals to those arguments. Some of them are really weak.

Does this look familiar?

"Most alleged Bigfoot tracks have five toes, but some casts show creatures with two, three, four, or even six toes (see figure 1). Surely all these tracks can't come from the same unknown creature, or even species of creatures."

http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-03/bigfoot.html

I've found nohing on six toes and we never got the right source for the photo.

My cyber association with some of the posters goes back over two years. I'm surprised it took me so long to weed a few out. Three out of the four are BFF members and they're not filtered there. Correa could have joined and debated Dr. Meldrum directly on the "improbable foot", but he didn't.

Correa should be discussing mythology with Hairy Man. I'm barely up on NA Native legends. She's an expert.

I'd just like to have my coffee without the reptilian eye staring at me first thing in the moning. That's my right.

Regarding Krantz, how often do you see sceptics pointing out he was a world authority on human evolution, or that he led the fight to have Kennewick Man studied? We get him comparing himself to Da Vinci, being fooled by the Indiana cast and saying he didn't know what the Skookum cast was, even though at some point he concurred. He di a lot of wok on this, including field work, and I think he deserved better than the dismissal got.

Incidently, there was an error in the obit. Although crushing injury was discussed, as was skew foot, the condition was likely metatarsus adductus.

 

[RayG]

I'm interested in the information being presented acurately, at least.

As am I. Best way to shut me up is to present the truth. If you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up with a link to the relevant info.

It bothers me that people who get their arguments from Dennett, Daegling and Radford don't seem to apply the scepticals to those arguments.

Which people, and which arguments? I get a lot of my arguments from reading Krantz, Fahrenbach, Green, Coleman, Meldrum, etc.

Some of them are really weak.

It ain't limited to skeptical arguments either.

My cyber association with some of the posters go back over two years.

Ah, so you're a relative newbie to the online bigfoot kingdom.

I'm surprised it took me so long to weed a few out. Three out of the four are BFF members and they're not filtered there.

In the 10 or so years I've been participating in online bigfoot forums/message boards/email lists, I've butted heads with a bunch of people, but I can't recall filtering anyone (with the exception of Beckjord). You can't debate a topic if the communication only flows one way.

Regarding Krantz, how often do you see sceptics pointing out he was a world authority on human evolution, or that he led the fight to have Kennewick Man studied?

How does that relate to his stance on bigfoot?

We get him comparing himself to Da Vinci, being fooled by the Indiana cast and saying he didn't know what the Skookum cast was, even though at some point he concurred.

I don't believe I've ever made any comments about Dr. Krantz in relation to the Indiana or Skookum casts, though I have pointed out he was pretty arrogant in declaring himself a modern-day Da Vinci who couldn't be fooled by fakers.

He di a lot of wok on this, including field work, and I think he deserved better than the dismissal got.

I have no doubt he had an impressive resume, but his Da Vinci boast was rather egotistical, and I don't know of any scientist who can determine bone structure from a footprint. For the most part I've enjoyed his bigfoot book.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

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".

Yes, and until you provide something worthwhile, that's how it works.

I see......you CANNOT analyse or weigh any of the evidence for Bigfoot, like sighting reports....unless I provide "something worthwhile".
That doesn't make any sense, Ray.
I can analyse evidence.....why can't you? Are you running a little short of brain?

Are you suggesting that ALL Bigfoot sighting reports should be automatically discounted and "weighed" as totally worthless and meaningless?
Or should they be given some thoughtful analysis?

What is the criteria that needs to be met for some piece of Bigfoot evidence to carry some weight...for it to have some small degree of probability, or likelihood that it MAY have been created by Bigfoot?

What exactly would qualify as "worthwhile" evidence? Do you have any idea Ray?

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

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

Let us know how you've eliminated all other possible explanations. An anecdotal account from Joyce don't cut the mustard.

Ooops, Ray......your response didn't answer my question!

Could you give it another try, please?

Do you plan on ever giving ANY REASONS why we should consider a "possible" explanation...from your list...to be a "likely" explanation for Joyce's sighting and phone call to me? Or is that just too difficult for your mental abilities?

This "answer" by you.....

These are all things/conditions/factors that are known to exist and affect people and their perception of events.

....doesn't give any actual reason why they would be a "likely" explanation for Joyce's sighting report.
Just because they are known to be real conditions, doesn't mean they had anything to do with Joyce's sighting report.
All "known to exist" means is that they are possible explanations in this case....but not necessarily PROBABLE.

Why should we think that any one of them is a likely explanation for her report...and phone call?

 

[kitakaze]

Cause I'm there! LOL! Just kidding...couldn't help myself.

Careful now, a good sense of humour can take you pretty far 'round these parts.

A location is determined to be "hot", when multiple recent (within a month or so of each other) reports are reported in the same area by different witnesses and in which those reports are not appearing in the newspaper (i.e., I personally do not consider an area hot when a single sighting makes the paper and everyone and their mother suddenly comes forward with their "sightings").

So newsprint is the determining factor when ruling out sociological causes? And in rural areas?

I'm taking static to mean it doesn't change...so no, "hot" areas are not static, areas can be hot and then not hot due to a variety of reasons. 1) witnesses stop coming forward due to pressure or fear; 2) if bigfoot is a real creature, one would expect it to move based on pressures, seasons, etc. and activity stops; 3) it was all crap anyway, and the witness are bored with making false reports.

1) You'd think at least in some of these rural locations unknown primate activity would cause welcome attention since so many clamour for some.

2) It or they? What types of pressures? It moves how far? Should we read this as nomadic? Migratory? What type of activity stops? Seasonal adaptive strategies? It moves away from possible human attention or they do as a group? Only one giant mammal in and all over NA doing this and escaping identification? How so?

3) Sounds more reasonable than bigfoot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hairy Man wrote:

The report was good because the gentleman has a Ph.D. in wildlife biology; the animal was only about 10 feet from him; he saw clear details of it's face and body; it was in the daylight; I visited personally with the witness and went to the location (about two weeks had passed; I didn't see any prints or anything); and I knew a biologist friend of his, whom the witness had told and who directed him to me. The mutual friend and the witness are well respected biologists with numerous peer-reviewed publications.

Sounds like a sighting report that has some "weight" to it.
I wonder if Ray's list of psychological disorders applies to this sighting.

Ray will tell us, I'm sure!

 

[kitakaze]

I wonder id Kevin's going to continue acting like most of the last few pages never happened? After all, they haven't been working out too well for him.

 

[RayG]

I see......you CANNOT analyse or weigh any of the evidence for Bigfoot, like sighting reports....unless I provide "something worthwhile".

Try to stick to what I actually said, instead of what your wishful-thinking would like.

That doesn't make any sense, Ray...I'm sorry to say.

No surprise, since that's not what I said.

I can analyse evidence.....why can't you? Are you running a little short of brain?

My argument had nothing to do with analyzing evidence. I'm not aware of anything wrong with my brain, how's your comprehension?

Are you suggesting that ALL Bigfoot sighting reports should be automatically discounted and "weighed" as totally worthless and meaningless?

Nope. (though I'm guessing you need a little help comprehending that)

Or should they be given some thoughtful analysis?

Who said they shouldn't?

What is the criteria that needs to be met for some piece of Bigfoot evidence to carry some weight...for it to have some small degree of probability, or likelihood that it MAY have been created by Bigfoot?

There ya go with your logically-impaired questions again, mixing probabilities and possibilities.

You are out of high school, right?

What exactly would qualify as "worthwhile" evidence? Do you have any idea Ray?

First thing that comes to mind, especially in this thread, are 2 prints in a trackway showing the same dermal ridges. Got some?

RayG