Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[RayG]

when did you graduate,

At the first chance I could get. I figured.....why wait?!

Not from diapers, from school.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Lu wrote:

But if they put you in MY home...that wouldn't be so bad....

At least you'd let me watch my Sasquatch DVDs.

I bought Dahinden's book recently. He mentions those events in Skamania County and has a picture of Sheriff Closner with his cast. He talked about a trackway, but it didn't sound like the same event. I'd been wondering about that.

Thanks to Huntster, we found out there were other trackways found around that same time.

I remember the waitress at the Eagle telling me about the sounds she heard, and the owner saying, "Oh, Ellen is such a liar." I guess there were denialists there too.

Doug and the kids and I were driving out about every weekend to view a frozen Multnomah Falls and eat at the Dairy Queen. We heard nothing about all this at the time. You'd think if they were trying to impress tourists they'd have told the tourists.

I did see a story on the Cox sighting on the front page of the Vancouver Columbian, but I think the rest stayed pretty local.

Skamania County passed its famous ordinance because there were so many bigfoot hunters showing up they were afraid they'd shoot each other, according to Ed. In reading Bryne's book, it sounds like it was Dahinden who screwed up the squatch watch near The Dalles.

Anyway, Joyce sounds like just another credible witness telling it like it was.
A member of a group I'm in told us about her sister seeing one while camping in Washington. One of the other members started with the sceptical stuff and she just looked at him as if he's nuts. It was a beautiful moment.

 

[tube]

What do you make of this track?

 

[Mad Hom]

The only reason you can give for them being "likely explanations" is "because there is no reliable evidence for Bigfoot".

What is your definition of "reliable evidence"? I can't find it in your previous posts right now.

The fact that there is no reliable evidence for Bigfeetsus is all we need Sweat. Why is it so hard for you to get that into your hat holder??

As for a definition of what constitutes "reliable" evidence? Well I would think a list of the things that DO NOT constitute said evidence would be more helpful...wanna read it? Here it goes..

Blobsquatches
Anecdotal accounts
Native American Legends
Feetprints
Casts of Feetprints
Inconclusive Hair Samples
Butt Casts
Ambiguous films made by con men
Unknown Shrieks in the night
Tree Breaks
Spooky Stories
Alleged Nests
Supposed Dermal Ridges
Tree Knocking
Anonymous Noises
Gut Feelings
Unwavering Faith
Profound Bleef
Wishful Thinking
Hope

 

[Mad Hom]

Anyway, Joyce sounds like just another credible witness telling it like it was.
A member of a group I'm in told us about her sister seeing one while camping in Washington. One of the other members started with the sceptical stuff and she just looked at him as if he's nuts. It was a beautiful moment.

See that's the main difference between Bleevers and we the critical thinkers of earth. Bleevers take people at their word...critical thinkers need actual proof...before we do so.

 

[LAL]

See that's the main difference between Bleevers and we the critical thinkers of earth. Bleevers take people at their word...critical thinkers need actual proof...before we do so.

I see. Just how far does that go? Would you believe the waiter if he tells you the food isn't poisoned?

 

[RayG]

Would you believe the waiter if he tells you the food isn't poisoned?

Just where is LAL eating out that you have to be warned the food isn't poisoned?

RayG

 

[Mad Hom]

I see. Just how far does that go? Would you believe the waiter if he tells you the food isn't poisoned?

Oh LAL you silly goose...with your silly analogies.

This just in....It is not an extraordinary claim if the waiter says my food isn't poisoned.I have every reason to believe that my food is in fact NOT poisoned...for I have eaten at many many restaraunts and never have I eaten poisoned food not to mention the millions of other people who have eaten at restaurants without suffering the fate of poisoned food so I need no extra proof to justify the waiters claim...well unless I'm in Mexico...than I stick to tortilla chips and tequila you know...just to be on the safe side.

On the other hand I have NO reason to believe in Hairy North American Bipedal Apes of Unusual Size (HNABAUS)....Mmmmmm...whatsoever.

So yes it will take,and should take for others.....much,much more than just a scary 23 year old story related over the phone or unidentifiable hair or ambiguous depressions in the clay or artifacts of the casting process or even a film made by a con man that looks for all the world like a schmendrick in a silly gorilla get up.

Ya know I'm well aware that one should attack the argument and not the arguer...but rationale such as the blather put forth by Rank-N-File Bigfeet Fan causes me to question that every time I set about responding to one of their posts.

Ugh!

 

[LTC8K6]

This guy clings to someone's 23 year old campfire tale as if he's onto the Hairy Grail

The Hairy Grail..... perfect!

HG should be the new abbreviation.

 

[LTC8K6]

Lu so loathes Matt Moneymaker that she refers to his site often....

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze's original statement, in post #1442:

This is my post with the partial quote of it, #1443:

Exactly how was the meaning of your statement changed by my partial quote?

This is what I said earlier today:


I did not....and still don't....see "a creature for which there is no reliable evidence" as a full explanation as to why those other explanations should be considered likely.

The only reason you can give for them being "likely explanations" is "because there is no reliable evidence for Bigfoot".
What is your definition of "reliable evidence"? I can't find it in your previous posts right now.

I asked you this question concerning your analysis of the "faulty memory" scenario.....


Can you answer it?

Kevin, I'm reposting #1548 and #1508 as you seem to have either missed them or are intentionally ignoring them.

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?

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.

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

 

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:

At least you'd let me watch my Sasquatch DVDs.

Absolutely Lu! In fact...it would be recommended.
Bigfoot dvd's with a bag of popcorn.....and the odd anecdotal sighting report on the side.

Oh what a night!!!

 

[kitakaze]

People who post like adolescents want to know if he's an adolescent?

LAL, are you telling me I post like an adolescent? Because I have to admit I often do- I do it in the humour section and have a blast. There's more than a few ladies in there that make my posts look tame. If you ever get tired of taking bigfoot so seriously you should stop by. In this section I make an effort to give each poster the treatment their posting behaviour deserves.

Was that idea borrowed from Huntster's thread or was it thought of independently?

Independantly, based on Kevin's posting behaviour.

If he wants me to post his age, I'm sure he'll give me permission.

I didn't ask for his age, just if he is an adolescent. That seems to be the case.

 

[kitakaze]

On whether or not Kevin is an adolescent I think I've found the answer as to why he and LAL were evasive on the matter:

Case closed? I think so.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'm reposting #1548 and #1508 as you seem to have either missed them or are intentionally ignoring them.

Or, I haven't had the time to respond to that one yet.

One again....you don't know what you're talking about, kitakaze.

Unlike skeptics here, who time and time again refuse to answer questions (examples later), I'll never refuse to answer any questions....which are relevant to the subject of Bigfoot, that is. It's just a matter of me having the time to do so.

I'll respond to your definition of "reliable evidence" later, when I have time to.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

On whether or not Kevin is an adolescent I think I've found the answer as to why he and LAL were evasive on the matter:

The picture on that page with the caption "Sweaty Yeti" is not me.

 

[kitakaze]

Or, I haven't had the time to respond to that one yet.

One again....you don't know what you're talking about, kitakaze.

Unlike skeptics here, who time and time again refuse to answer questions (examples later), I'll never refuse to answer any questions....which are relevant to the subject of Bigfoot, that is. It's just a matter of me having the time to do so.

I'll respond to your definition of "reliable evidence" later, when I have time to.

I guess this wasn't relevant in your mind.

The picture on that page with the caption "Sweaty Yeti" is not me.

What a coincidence.

 

[William Parcher]

I see a subject (Patty) with a seriously compromised forehead....part of it is missing.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think that nearly everyone would agree that Patty is larger (bulky) than just about any normal person. A believer would say she is larger because Bigfoots are larger. A skeptic would say "she" is larger because the costume is larger than the person wearing it. Whether it is a real Bigfoot or a fake one, the head should be larger than a normal human head. Would you agree?

If you have a minute, William....can you explain to me how Bob H. managed to make Patty's fingers wiggle...when his arms are clearly too short for his fingers to be Patty's fingers??

I'm not confident that the fingers did wiggle (or flex). I bet you saw the same two-frame animated clip (by MK Davis?) that is supposed to show finger movement. I think it may be a simple change in the position/angle of the hand/fingers that gives the impression that the fingers are moving independent of the palm. Whenever I can see the hands/fingers clearly, they always seem to be in a fixed cupped position.

Concerning Bob Heironimus: I guess I'm a woo believer that he was the guy in the suit. He could have done a much better job of explaining his role and other details (this may be partially the fault of Greg Long), but it was a very long time ago. For me, there is one particularly satisfying proclamation by BH. He says that P&G actually filmed him weeks before October 20, 1967. That can explain a major inconsistency with the ability to get the film developed in order to be shown on October 22. If Heirominus is simply telling a lie and wasn't in the Patty suit... then why doesn't he just say they (P&G) made the film on October 20th like they said they did?

I volunteer to be the token Heironimus Woo around here.

 

[kitakaze]

I volunteer to be the token Heironimus Woo around here.

OK, I volunteer to be the token 'not Heironimus' woo around here. You'd think that might be a can of worms but I don't see it that way. Anyone ever see Fox's 'World's Greatest Hoaxes'? (I think I got the title right, but I'm not 100%.)

Anyway, Patterson and Gimlin's stories have inconsistencies and so does Heironimus'. None of it does anything for the film or bigfoot claims in general. The PGF is crap, chuck it and show us something not easily attributable to something other than sasquatch. If someone does I'll eat my crow with a big fat grin.

 

[William Parcher]

OK, I volunteer to be the token 'not Heironimus' woo around here. You'd think that might be a can of worms but I don't see it that way. Anyone ever see Fox's 'World's Greatest Hoaxes'? (I think I got the title right, but I'm not 100%.)

It's not a can of worms. Wait, yes it is. Lu & Sweety will be agreeing with you. I'll be a good little woo and always try to force you guys to bear the burden of proof. Prove to me that BH was not Patty

The PGF is crap, chuck it and show us something not easily attributable to something other than sasquatch.

They can't and won't chuck it. It remains their most celebrated piece of evidence, and it also is a card holding up The House That Meldrum Built.