Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
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?

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.

I agree...as far as determining evidence "definitely came" from a Bigfoot....but can we determine there is a "degree of probability that it came" from a Bigfoot?
Is there any area in-between PROOF and NOTHING when it comes to the weight of a piece of evidence?

 

[kitakaze]

You haven't given even ONE reason why "mistaken identity" is a likely explanation, kitakaze.

And neither have you given a reason why "faulty memory" is a likely explanation.

Oh...and also "willful dishonesty"....you never supplied a reason why that is a LIKELY scenario.
If you truly belive that is a likely thing.....why do you think she decided to call and lie to me?

In your analysis, kitakaze.....which of those 3 explanations is the MOST likely......and why?

So does the tinfoil mess with the signal or what? Mistaken identity, faulty memory, and wilfull dishonesty can all be considered likely explanations given that Joyce claims to have seen a creature for which there is no reliable evidence. Which was actually the case can not be established without proper verified information concerning an event she claims to have happened 23 years ago.

You can stop pretending posts 1474, 1477, and 1480 never happened anytime you like, Kevin.

BTW, any good reasons why we, not you, should believe that Joyce saw a real bigfoot?

Oh and one more thing- how old are you Kevin, seriously?

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom! Where the heck have you been!? *checks avatar* Oh. Heh, heh... nevermind.

I've been around Kit....there and back again actually. I've been lurking, just to busy to drop in for a chat. This topic sort of piqued my interest again. I guess we'll see how long that interest...and my patience....lasts.

 

[Mad Hom]

kitakaze wrote:


You haven't given even ONE reason why "mistaken identity" is a likely explanation, kitakaze.

And neither have you given a reason why "faulty memory" is a likely explanation.

Oh...and also "willful dishonesty"....you never supplied a reason why that is a LIKELY scenario.
If you truly belive that is a likely thing.....why do you think she decided to call and lie to me?

In your analysis, kitakaze.....which of those 3 explanations is the MOST likely......and why?

Here's a wild stab in the dark as to why mistaken identity is the likely explanation...


Now wait for it....









...because Bigfeetsus has not by any stretch of anyone's vivid imagination been proven to be anything more than...





Now wait for it...





...Bullschlitz!?!?!?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Mistaken identity, faulty memory, and wilfull dishonesty can all be considered likely explanations given that Joyce claims to have seen a creature for which there is no reliable evidence.

Your "analysis" is actually non-analysis, kitakaze.

This statement by you proves it......

Which was actually the case can not be established

Analysis does not need to determine beyond all doubt what is the actual truth behind a sighting report.
Analysis can reduce the odds of, or eliminate, some possible explanations, and strengthen the likelihood, or probability of other possible explanations.

Analysis is all about assessing "probabilities"....giving "weight" to different possible explanations.

Your choosing to avoid assessing ANY different "degrees of probabilities" to those 3 alternate explanations shows very clearly that you are simply NOT interested in analysing Joyce's report.

That's exactly the reason why I asked you which of those 3 explanations you thought is the most likely....because that assessment involves "probabilities".....and I knew you wouldn't engage in that.
No skeptic ever does.
I pointed this out in post #1470...

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".

Here's an example of actual analysis of 1 of those alternate explanations.....

"Faulty memory".....
The chances...the probability...of Joyce having such a bad memory of the event...so that she remembered it as a Bigfoot sighting when in fact it was a sighting of a different type of animal altogether...like a bear....is zero.
The reason why I say that is because I talked to Joyce's husband first, before Joyce called me, and he supported her story completely.
He confirmed what she had written in her report on Bfro's site.
It just so happens that their daughter, who was a young teenager at the time...lived with the parents.
Do you think at the time of the sighting event.....there was any communication between the daughter, the father, and Joyce?
(I'm guessin' there WAS.)
If Joyce and her daughter came home that day and said they saw a bear on the side of the road, then why...years later...are BOTH the husband and Joyce recalling it as a Bigfoot sighting?
For "faulty memory" to be the true explanation for this sighting.....it requires a SHARED faulty memory by Joyce's husband, daughter, and Joyce herself.
Odds of that being the case.........ZIPPO.

kitakaze...my skeptical pal....what do you think are the chances...the odds...the probability that there is a "shared faulty memory" involved in this case?

 

[Mad Hom]

kitakaze wrote:


Your "analysis" is actually non-analysis, kitakaze.

This statement by you proves it......



Analysis does not need to determine beyond all doubt what is the actual truth behind a sighting report.
Analysis can reduce the odds of, or eliminate, some possible explanations, and strengthen the likelihood, or probability of other possible explanations.

Analysis is all about assessing "probabilities"....giving "weight" to different possible explanations.

Your choosing to avoid assessing ANY different "degrees of probabilities" to those 3 alternate explanations shows very clearly that you are simply NOT interested in analysing Joyce's report.

That's exactly the reason why I asked you which of those 3 explanations you thought is the most likely....because that assessment involves "probabilities".....and I knew you wouldn't engage in that.
No skeptic ever does.
I pointed this out in post #1470...



Here's an example of actual analysis of 1 of those alternate explanations.....

"Faulty memory".....
The chances...the probability...of Joyce having such a bad memory of the event...so that she remembered it as a Bigfoot sighting when in fact it was a sighting of a different type of animal altogether...like a bear....is zero.
The reason why I say that is because I talked to Joyce's husband first, before Joyce called me, and he supported her story completely.
He confirmed what she had written in her report on Bfro's site.
It just so happens that their daughter, who was a young teenager at the time...lived with the parents.
Do you think at the time of the sighting event.....there was any communication between the daughter, the father, and Joyce?
(I'm guessin' there WAS.)
If Joyce and her daughter came home that day and said they saw a bear on the side of the road, then why...years later...are BOTH the husband and Joyce recalling it as a Bigfoot sighting?
For "faulty memory" to be the true explanation for this sighting.....it requires a SHARED faulty memory by Joyce's husband, daughter, and Joyce herself.
Odds of that being the case.........ZIPPO.

kitakaze...my skeptical pal....what do you think are the chances...the odds...the probability that there is a "shared faulty memory" involved in this case?

First of all...you confirmed a report.....OVER THE PHONE?!?!?

Second of all...this report happened...YEARS AGO?!?!

Third of all......and you....BOUGHT IT!?!?

Ugh!! Listen Yeti Sweat it really is this simple....there is as of yet NO reliable evidence of Bigfeets existence...none...zip....zilch.....none whatsoever ok?

Despite how many times you click your heels and wish for it to be so Bigfeets have not been proven to exist...by a long shot. So, faulty memory, lying or misidentification are the only plausible explanations for what these people claim to have seen.....feel free to learn how to deal with that would ya?

As a crack investigator I'm sure you looked into these people's backgrounds right? I mean maybe they just lie alot...maybe they are prone to flights of fancy..maybe they are lonely and desperate for attention..maybe they wouldn't know a bear from that hole in their butt.I'm not saying any of this is true,but what I am saying is until you have eliminated all of those possibilities all you bring to the table with this blather is an eyewitness account...and a second hand one at that...ergo...anecdotal eveidence....oh and this just in...

Anecdotes are useless as evidence ok? Yet another thing you'll need to try and come to grips with their Yeti Sweat. Spooky stories and really,really really believable reports might fly over at the Bigfeet Think Tank (BFF) but here they hold about as much water as a wicker basket.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

this blather is an eyewitness account...and a second hand one at that...ergo...anecdotal eveidence.

In my case, it's a first-hand account. I talked to Joyce directly...she was one of the eyewitnesses.
I recieved information first-hand about the sighting.

Was that difficult for you to understand Mad Hom?


The definition of "anecdote"...
"A usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident".

So you're saying that a sighting report...because it's a narrative....a spoken or written account.....can have NO meaning, and carry NO weight, as far as being evidence of someone seeing a real wild creature?
Why is that?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Mad Hom wrote:

First of all...you confirmed a report.....OVER THE PHONE?!?!?

Second of all...this report happened...YEARS AGO?!?!

Third of all......and you....BOUGHT IT!?!?

First of all.....I talked to Joyce about her sighting....OVER THE PHONE!!!!

Second of all...the sighting occured...YEARS AGO!!!!

Third of all...the information...WAS FREE!!!! In fact...SHE paid for the call!!!

WHAT WAS YOU POINT?!?!?!

 

[kitakaze]

Sweaty, your dishonesty and transparent quote manipulation isn't fooling anyone. You pathetically try to present partial quotes in such a way as to try and continue your monologue but you only accomplish to reach new lows. Such behaviour have cost you all remaining credibility if you had any. Here's the complete statement:

Which was actually the case can not be established without proper verified information concerning an event she claims to have happened 23 years ago.

Why do you persist in such lame tactics, Kevin? Do you still claim to have not ruled out all but two possibilities? Were you lying or was your memory faulty?

I can easily conclude that Joyce seeing a real bigfoot was unlikely compared to a mundane explanation. Mistaken identity, faulty memory, and wilfull are all events proven to occur. Why should we consider a real bigfoot?

Kevin, you really do seem to have things 'bass-ackwards' so let's see if we can't sort you out. You assert your Joyce business as being evidence for bigfoot that 'isn't paltry'. Where is the burden of proof in the matter? Is it our job to prove that Joyce did not see a bigfoot? Why should we do this? What reason do we have think it could have been a bigfoot? Is it not your job as the claimant to provide evidence not easily attributable to something other than bigfoot?

The only information on the matter that you have verified was that Joyce is a real person who made a report claiming to have seen a bigfoot with her daughter 23 years ago. The only way that we would be able to begin to try and say what is behind the claim is to have information that you don't have, never knew, and never asked for. Why did you do this? Because you took her word for it. Why should we?

You know, Kevin, you wouldn't be embarrassed and laughed at so much if you had approached the matter differently from the beginning. If you had come saying 'I believe bigfoot exists/Joyce saw a real bigfoot but know of no of no reliable evidence to support that position' nobody would be saying a thing. It'd be totally fine and nobody here would care. It's because of the fact that you actually try to criticize people for not arriving at the same conclusions in a way that is disgenuous that you get the current treatment you deserve.

You can rail against skeptics all you like but it's clear that the word is emotionally loaded for you. Again, the best way to stick it to the man is with reliable evidence.

Also since you persist in trying to hide from points where you have been fallacious and general posting behaviour I must again ask, how old are you, Kevin?

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

First of all.....I talked to Joyce about her sighting....OVER THE PHONE!!!!

Second of all...the sighting occured...YEARS AGO!!!!

Third of all...the information...WAS FREE!!!! In fact...SHE paid for the call!!!

WHAT WAS YOU POINT?!?!?!

The point that you seem to be having trouble wrapping your ear seperater around is this...

In my minds eye I have the definition of the worst possible Hairy Biped report...and it would be years after the fact,over the phone without ever having met the people who reported it,and after having never actually been to the area where the sighting took place(allegedly). You have absolutely ZERO corroboration on this...zip...oh I'm sorry wait just a second you have other people telling you that Joyce isn't lying...sorry I forgot.

There's a couple of words that best describe what should be done with this report....and I believe those words are ...Shyt Canned....why? Mostly because.....it's useless.

 

[Mad Hom]

Mad Hom wrote:

In my case, it's a first-hand account. I talked to Joyce directly...she was one of the eyewitnesses.
I recieved information first-hand about the sighting.

Was that difficult for you to understand Mad Hom?


The definition of "anecdote"...
"A usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident".

So you're saying that a sighting report...because it's a narrative....a spoken or written account.....can have NO meaning, and carry NO weight, as far as being evidence of someone seeing a real wild creature?
Why is that?

Because until we have reason to believe that Bigfeets actually exist.. someone saying that they saw one means nothing. There are to many other explanations for their claim they that we know to exist. So riddle me this Bleever... which explanation is more plausible...the ones we know to exist...or the one we have no idea of whether it exists or not??

 

[kitakaze]

...Bullschlitz!?!?!?

Madness, meet Kevin.

Kevin, meet a solid understanding of reality... no? Not yet? Still feeling a wee bit shy? OK, maybe a bit later.

Sorry, Kev's feeling a bit squirmy today.

 

[Mad Hom]

Madness, meet Kevin.

Kevin, meet a solid understanding of reality... no? Not yet? Still feeling a wee bit shy? OK, maybe a bit later.

Sorry, Kev's feeling a bit squirmy today.

Kit is this guy actually trying to pass off a phone interview about a sighting that took place (allegedly) 23 years ago? as credible? Am I clear on that? and more importantly...Is he serious??

 

[Mad Hom]

I'm sure this is another one of those sightings that get's thrown onto the pile and mentioned en masse as "too many reports for it not to be true" by Tru-Bleevers far and wide.

Ok so there's 100,000 reports...how many of them happened at night or from a moving vehicle? How many of them are just a tree break or a stinky smell? How many of them are just prints or an ambigous outline in the dark woods?

How many of them are reported....23 years later?!?!?

I would submit the "Good Reports" are far far less than this "too many reports for it not to be true" theory would have us believe to hold more water than that wicker basket I was talking about.

 

[LAL]

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/ky-bigfoot-video/

BFRO scores! Bigfoot eats pancakes on camera!

Maybe not....

If you haven't seen this, it's incredibly indicative of the state of bigfootery....

Thanks for posting that; I hadn't seen it yet.

It's indicative of when, why and where the mass exodus from the BFRO began.

The BFFers are having a field day:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17799&st=100&gopid=369477&

Did you not know MM is loathed, espcially by those who worked with him?

You really need to to stop trying to characterize "bigfootery". It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

I think the video shows the hazzards of trying to get surveillance footage. Even the people are too blurry for identification.

 

[kitakaze]

Kit is this guy actually trying to pass off a phone interview about a sighting that took place (allegedly) 23 years ago? as credible? Am I clear on that? and more importantly...Is he serious??

Yes, I'm afraid he is. Kevin is seriously serious. Lately, his surmations on the matter seem to involving pinching off a few all caps, ellipsis fit posts where he quotes you in a manner like this:

You say something like 'I do believe in bigfoot being based on a bunch of horse#$%&' and he quotes you as...

I DO believe in bigfoot

...and then goes on some rant where you see the words 'possibilities' and 'probabilities' fired around and then bolts.

I've seriously started going on the assumption that he's an adolescent.

 

[kitakaze]

I think the video shows the hazzards of trying to get surveillance footage. Even the people are too blurry for identification.

That would be the upshot, right? I would describe the viewing experience as typical.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I can easily conclude that Joyce seeing a real bigfoot was unlikely compared to a mundane explanation. Mistaken identity, faulty memory, and wilfull lying are all events proven to occur.

Still dodging analysis, I see.

I asked you a simple question regarding your "analysis" of alternate explanations.......

what do you think are the chances...the odds...the probability that there is a "SHARED faulty memory" involved in this case?

You say it's easy for you to conclude that "faulty memory" is a more likely explanation.....but apparantly it's impossible for you to elaborate on why.
That.....is Bullschlitz!!!!

In this case "faulty memory" has to include more than one person.

Again...what are the odds of that explanation being the truth?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Lu, you'll never guess what turned up:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1381771&postcount=1205

 

[Mad Hom]

Thanks for posting that; I hadn't seen it yet.

It's indicative of when, why and where the mass exodus from the BFRO began.

The BFFers are having a field day:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17799&st=100&gopid=369477&

Did you not know MM is loathed, espcially by those who worked with him?

You really need to to stop trying to characterize "bigfootery". It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

I think the video shows the hazzards of trying to get surveillance footage. Even the people are too blurry for identification.

I was just reading Fuddsters ridiculous "Claimant Responsibility" thread over at the Think Tank....and based solely on that thread I would submit that LTC has pretty much nailed bigfootery right on it's noggin. I think Fudley was trying to say that the Claimant has no responsibility...MMMMmmmm.. whatsoever as to proving their claim. Wow so a person can without any corroboration at all claim that he/she has seen pretty much anything he/she desires. How conveeeeeenient that.