Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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?

Wake up, kitakaze. This is a discussion board.
The precise meaning of words and phrases is a very important part of an online discussion.
Your attack on my questions, looking for some clear understanding with regards to phrases like "reliable evidence" and "dependable evidence", shows how truly uninterested you are in an honest, intelligent debate.

What you are doing is attacking UNDERSTANDING itself....not me.
Why would you do that?

Is there something truly WRONG with me trying to get a clear understanding of what someone else means when they say "reliable evidence"?
Answer the question.

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.

What do you mean by "connected to" Bigfoot? Do you mean evidence that's been PROVEN to be from Bigfoot?

Question, Kevin:
Do you believe without doubt or question that bigfoot exists?

I believe very strongly that Bigfoot does exist. But I can't say right now that I absolutely know it for a fact.

 

[RayG]

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

We shouldn't until further investigation.

Similarly, we shouldn't accept your likely explanations until further investigation.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

SweatyYeti:

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".

Ray:

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

Me:

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

Ray:

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

"that's how it works." is what you actually said, Ray.

What did you mean by that?
I thought you meant that you and other skeptics can only refer to Bigfoot evidence in terms of "possibilities" and not "probabilities".
Is that correct?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

As I recall from before I joined this board and was lurking at the BFF you said there that Correa was very knowledgable and you hoped some members from the BFF would come to the JREF to assist debating him.

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.)

To try and convince people unreliable evidence that bigfoot exists or most likely does based on unreliable evidence? BTW, that wasn't an appeal to pity, was it? JK, I've got a bugger of a cold, too. Get well soon.

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

If they made a habit of saying BF couldn't exist would you take them as skeptics and their arguments very seriously? Anyway, can I take it that you believe without doubt or question that bigfoot exists?

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.

Yes, it bothers me too when information regarding bigfoot is inaccurately presented. From skeptics and proponents (you and myself included).

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.

That doesn't make him right about anything to do with bigfoot. Ever heard of Tesla? (BTW, 'He di a lot of wok on this' - You either are indeed under the weather or you're becoming a stereotypical movie asian. )

 

[Hairy Man]

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.

Ah, now come on...I live in a town of about 400 with about 800 in the next town up...we're not all yookles needing attention. In fact, they just did a newspaper article on me and my work, and not a single nut came out of the woodwork. Nor are all bigfooters blind believers... I don't know if you've seen the guest blog I did about the crook Biscardi on Cryptomundo (I can't link to it cause I'm young blood...), but just because someone may have a strong leaning in a direction doesn't mean everything claimed as evidence is accepted as evidence.

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?

They. Us. Far enough away from the pressure. Nomadic...of course, the only other option is settlement, and that's ridiculous. Yes, migratory and nomadic go together like peas and carrots. Activity stops? I would suspect a seasonal adaptive strategy since that is the primary method used by hunter/gatherers throughout the world. Probably grouping as most primates do...you know, females watching the offspring and doing all the work while males sit around scratching their...um...fleas. A single mammal? Not possible...has to be a breeding population.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

Ray...do you have any idea what the meaning of that question is?

 

[kitakaze]

Wake up, kitakaze. This is a discussion board.
The precise meaning of words and phrases is a very important part of an online discussion.
Your attack on my questions, looking for some clear understanding with regards to phrases like "reliable evidence" and "dependable evidence", shows how truly uninterested you are in an honest, intelligent debate.

What you are doing is attacking UNDERSTANDING itself....not me.
Why would you do that?

Is there something truly WRONG with me trying to get a clear understanding of what someone else means when they say "reliable evidence"?
Answer the question.


What do you mean by "connected to" Bigfoot? Do you mean evidence that's been PROVEN to be from Bigfoot?

I believe very strongly that Bigfoot does exist. But I can't say right now that I absolutely know it for a fact.

Attack, huh? On understanding? Kevin, you are intent on wilfully ignoring everytime when you are caught with your pants down. You've asked many times for reasons regarding Joyce, gotten them, and pretended you didn't. Several times at various points in this thread you've asked for a definition of reliable evidence, received it, and pretended you didn't. You also ignored this:

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?

Simply, reliable evidence for bigfoot is such that can not be readily be attributed to explanations other than bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

Hey Sweaty, posts #1452 (regarding reasons for others), #1474, #1477, and #1480 anytime you're ready.

 

[RayG]

What did you mean by that?
I thought you meant that you and other skeptics can only refer to Bigfoot evidence in terms of "possibilities" and not "probabilities".
Is that correct?

Awww shucks, you turned on your comprehension meter.

Now, step away from that romantic meter...

My argument/point has nothing to do with an ability to analyze evidence. I'm all in favor of analyzing/studying evidence (footprints for example). Claiming/determining they came from bigfoot is an entirely different matter. The same goes for hair, snot, scat, scabs, puke, toe-jam, etc. etc.

Ray...do you have any idea what the meaning of that question is?

The way you have your terminology intermixed? No. Stick to one or the other, or don't bother asking.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Just so we're straight, Hairy Man, none of the threads concerning BF on this board would have gotten very far if the skeptics were under the impression that proponents are suggesting a single animal. (They'd have it pretty easy if that were the case.)

They. Us. Far enough away from the pressure. Nomadic...of course, the only other option is settlement, and that's ridiculous. Yes, migratory and nomadic go together like peas and carrots. Activity stops? I would suspect a seasonal adaptive strategy since that is the primary method used by hunter/gatherers throughout the world. Probably grouping as most primates do...you know, females watching the offspring and doing all the work while males sit around scratching their...um...fleas. A single mammal? Not possible...has to be a breeding population.

'It or they?' refers to if you think sasquatches generally move in groups from pressure or solitarily. If they are moving in groups from pressure this increases the chances of them being identified. Surely there are other pressures which cause them to move beyond human activity which again increases their chances of being identified. Surely the pressures involved with human activity given their alleged continent-wide distribution would make the chances of a conflict leading to the animals being identified much more likely. Also with this distribution the farther they have to move to escape pressures the more likely they are to be identified (BTW, please don't interpret identified as reported).

I don't know about settlement but why would these creatures not being nomadic and inhabiting particular areas be ridiculous? What type of seasonal adaptive strategies do you suspect and how would they relate in terms of them being or not being identified? Also, when you refer to hunter/gatherers throughout the world are you refering to animals in general or humans and related species? If they group as most primates do, again the question comes back to how the relates to identification. Females raising offspring, doing all the work (gathering? hunting, too?), and avoiding identification all this time all over NA is quite a feat.

Of course 'only one giant mammal in and all over NA doing this and escaping identification? How so?' does not refer to a single animal but rather only one single species of giant mammal escaping identification in NA in addition to the fact that it allegedly lives all over the continent.

PS- I should have separated your quotes but meh, I didn't.

 

[Correa Neto]

I think the propper proceedure would be to place the person on the "ignore list" and no longer talk about him/her in public...

But this is just my point of view...

I usually would not answer such sort of post, but there are some items I perceive as personal attacks and misrepresentations that I feel deserve to be countered.

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".

But be prepared to see the same stuff posted by LAL over and over again...

But this time LAL will have the illusion of not having opposition from me, RayG, Diogenes and desertyeti...

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

Misrepresentation.
It was LAL who re-started to address my posts well before Huntster stopped to "engage" me.
I could go on, but I am really not interested in dirty laundry. Anyone who wishes to know the full story can go back to the old threads and see how it all started.

...snip.... Correa could have joined and debated Dr. Meldrum directly on the "improbable foot", but he didn't.

So what?
More than once I stated bigfoot was not my main "fringe subject" interest. Not to mention I have a real life and two forums (fora?) are already too much for me to catch up, specially when most of the material is completely irrelevant. And honestly, I don't think I needed to explain myself. Consider the above an act of goodwill.

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

So, you can raise a subject to back your claim. You can discuss it, presenting your case. But I -and I guess also the other posters- am not allowed to counter it. Because you are not an expert... Right.

But you seemed pretty eager to discuss mid tarsal breaks, fossilization processes, etc. Are you an expert in these fields?

BTW, Hairy Man probably already knows my POV. If he/she thinks its worthy discussing them, I will wellcome the opportunity.

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

Why do you hate America, I mean, reptiles?
Warning: you must at least lurk in the politics subforum to understand the above joke.

I kindly ask some poster not on her ignore list to quote the next sentences:

LAL, please avoid making any public statements about me. If I am at your ignore list, then ignore me completely and pretend I do not exist, at least in public. I no longer intend to make any public comments on your person.

Now, could we try to get back on track?
Anyone else took DY's challenge?
What you folks think of my footprint submission suggestion?

I thnk his last set of pics provide an interesting starting point for a discussion.

 

[kitakaze]

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

snip...So, you can raise a subject to back your claim. You can discuss it, presenting your case. But I -and I guess also the other posters- am not allowed to counter it. Because you are not an expert... Right.

But you seemed pretty eager to discuss mid tarsal breaks, fossilization processes, etc. Are you an expert in these fields?

BTW, Hairy Man probably already knows my POV. If he/she thinks its worthy discussing them, I will wellcome the opportunity. ...snip...

snip...I kindly ask some poster not on her ignore list to quote the next sentences:

LAL, please avoid making any public statements about me. If I am at your ignore list, then ignore me completely and pretend I do not exist, at least in public. I no longer intend to make any public comments on your person.

Now, could we try to get back on track?
Anyone else took DY's challenge?
What you folks think of my footprint submission suggestion?

I thnk his last set of pics provide an interesting starting point for a discussion.

I also included part of your post that I would like to see addressed.

 

[kitakaze]

Now, could we try to get back on track?
Anyone else took DY's challenge?
What you folks think of my footprint submission suggestion?

I thnk his last set of pics provide an interesting starting point for a discussion.

Good idea. I took the first challenge and now I'll take a crack at the second. I think the footprint is also a good suggestion. Being in the heart of Tokyo I'm a little hard pressed to find something other than concrete to put my foot on. I could always go for the sandbox at a nearby playground but I'm not to excited about the cat poo.

 

[kitakaze]

Here's a link to the second challenge:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2316773#post2316773

Des, I'm PMing you my answers.

 

[Correa Neto]

Good idea. I took the first challenge and now I'll take a crack at the second. I think the footprint is also a good suggestion. Being in the heart of Tokyo I'm a little hard pressed to find something other than concrete to put my foot on. I could always go for the sandbox at a nearby playground but I'm not to excited about the cat poo.

Well, I will only be able to take pics of my footprints in the next weekend. I'm at the regional office these days. I will make some days of field work, but I'm really not happy with the idea of taking my boots off, placing my feet on the mud and wearing the boots again. So, I'll wait untill I get back home and take pics of my footprints at the sand of a beach...

A suggestion:
Try replicating with your own feet the "most famous" bigfoot footprint stills. See what's needed to do so and think about it.

 

[drapier]

I've recently discovered a very good podcast called "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe," and in listening to some of the early podcasts, I encountered a discussion concerning evidence for early human footwear.

The host of the show referred to an essay by Erik Trinkaus in _The JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE_ (Volume 32, Issue 10 , October 2005, Pages 1515-1526) entitled "Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use." According to the host of the postcast, one of the author's reasons for concluding that humans started to wear footwear 30,000 years ago was the structure of the foot among the human specimens from that era. Basically, Trinkaus argues (according to this podcaster) that the small size of the little toe is evidence of early humans making use of footware.

I was wondering whether any of this might be relevant to a study of bigfoot. If Trinkaus is correct, are the little toes on supposed bigfoot prints too small for a manlike creature that doesn't wear shoes?

My training is far from archeology or human anatomy, but this section of the essay seemed to be most relevant to our discussion (my apologies if this passage is too long or if this topic has been covered already). Maybe someone in this forum understands the passage better than I do.


"5. Late Pleistocene locomotor robusticity and pedal phalanges

Research has shown that there was little change in average locomotor anatomy hypertrophy during the Late Pleistocene, and that a significant decrease in robusticity occurred principally with the emergence of sedentism and especially industrialization during the Holocene. This is evident in the robusticity of femoral and tibial diaphyses which, when appropriately scaled to estimates of body mass and ecogeographically-patterned body proportions, shows little shift between late archaic and early modern humans and within early modern humans [37], [65], [90], [91] and [92]. It is apparent in femoral anterior curvature [69], relative power arms for quadriceps femoris [89], and scaled dimensions of discrete muscle insertion areas [84]. The only consistent changes concern femoral shaft shape, which relate to changing body proportions between late archaic humans and early/middle Upper Paleolithic humans [90] and [98] and mobility levels through the Upper Paleolithic [37]. Femoral neck-shaft angles increase slightly among late Upper Paleolithic humans, despite being anomalously high among the Qafzeh-Skhul early modern humans [83].

It is therefore to be expected that there would be little change in pedal phalangeal robusticity through the Late Pleistocene, if the use of footwear remained consistent through this time period. However, if there was a significant increase in the use of footwear, one would predict a modest reduction in hallucal phalangeal robusticity but a clear decrease in the robusticity of the lesser digits. Conversely, therefore, if a decrease in lateral pedal phalangeal robusticity is perceived in the context of relatively less change in hallucal hypertrophy, it should indicate an increase in the use of protective footwear."

 

[desertyeti]

In case anyone's forgotten, or hasn't seen them, here's those 5 prints again.
For those who haven't read through the entire thread (geez...who WOULD?!), the idea is to discern which (if any) is (are) real and which (if any) is (are) forgeries.
Since the most identifiable evidence for Bigfoot is...well...big footprints, it follows that anyone claiming to have found real ones must first demonstrate an ability to recongize real prints. Realizing that no one here claims to be a BF expert, it's still a fun and educational exercise, should you wish to engage.

So, pm me for the answers, or I'll post them by next week.
I'm still waiting on a couple of folks to submit their answers.
Thus far, based on responses pm-ed to me, one person's gotten 100%, another 80%. Very good! I'd trust their interpretations of casts or prints more than just some Joe Shmo on the street (or in the lab).
So, once again, 1 throu gh5, here they are:

 

[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.

And we do.

Just to get the list into context (and we all know it's not precise, I think), I was replying to Desertyeti's contention the 20" rainfall correlation was a myth started by John Green.

"The BF's running around in N. Dakota, the southwestern US, and yes, even the interiors of Oregon and Washing to, not to mention Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana (all of which have areas considered to be desert based on annual precipitation budget and all claiming sightings and prints)."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2270338&postcount=809

 

[LAL]

As I recall from before I joined this board and was lurking at the BFF you said there that Correa was very knowledgable and you hoped some members from the BFF would come to the JREF to assist debating him.

I recall sending out an open invitation, but I don't recall putting it like that. Got the link? RogerKni had been lurking but didn't have time to post. Huntster responded and I took a much-needed break. I'd been alone here for months.

I did ask Dr. Meldrum for an opinion on the improbable foot, but that was via PM. I didn't take physics in high school and am at a loss on things like that. He replied on BFF.

I've been filtered and it didn't become a topic. I've even been filtered for reposting someone who was filtered.

Why is this such a big deal?

If I weren't under the weather, I might have caught all those typos (it's the keyboard's fault). Sorry you've got a cold.

No appeal to pity, I've just been sick for over a month (I normally shake these things off in a few days) and I'm not as sharp as I should be. It would nice to be able to just take a break without someone making a snide comment about it.

 

[LAL]

The host of the show referred to an essay by Erik Trinkaus in _The JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE_ (Volume 32, Issue 10 , October 2005, Pages 1515-1526) entitled "Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use." According to the host of the postcast, one of the author's reasons for concluding that humans started to wear footwear 30,000 years ago was the structure of the foot among the human specimens from that era. Basically, Trinkaus argues (according to this podcaster) that the small size of the little toe is evidence of early humans making use of footware.

It sounds Lamarkian. What mechanism would be responsible for reduction of the little toe in relation to wearing shoes?