Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

I went back and found this quote from kitakaze, in which he gives his "reason" why evidence "A" (Joyce's sighting and phone call) is meaningless.....

kitakaze wrote, in post#1442...

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.

Basically, saying that because other Bigfoot evidence is "unreliable"...which I guess means "worthless"...that therefore Joyce's sighting report and phone call to me is ALSO worthless, or meaningless...or "unreliable". (whatever that exactly means.)

Good, circular reasoning....courtesy of "Deep-thought" kitakaze himself!

 

[William Parcher]

Well, actually......a Reptile is a MUCH more "bizarre" explanation....or, in other words...less probable explanation....than Bigfoot being a Primate.

Baby Dangling, I guess I didn't explain my answer well enough to understood by you. I wasn't implying that Bigfoot-as-reptile is just as bizarre as Bigfoot-as-primate. It's not. What I meant was Bigfoot-as-reptile is just as bizarre as the sum total description of Bigfoot given by believers. It must be described as an animal that actively and successfully avoids confirmation for centuries on end. Bigfoot is extremely stingy about giving up its DNA in any form - no other animal has accomplished that. It must be described as an animal that is obviously very fearful of humans but with no reasonable cause for that fear. Those are very bizarre features of Bigfoot that are given to us by the believers. But that is just a few bizarre descriptions given; there are plenty of others. My strong opinion is that they have no choice other than to describe Bigfoot in very bizarre ways.

Because, from the fossil record, there are many known intermediate species of primates between apes and man.......but as far as I know....there are NO fossils of intermediate forms between any reptiles and man.

You cut your own throat just like Lu does all the time. First we are told that not having fossil evidence for Bigfoot is no good reason to think it doesn't exist. Then we are told by you that no fossil evidence exists for a reptile-to-man transition and so therefore such an animal could not exist. WTF?

But your situation is much worse than that contradiction, Baby Dangling. You don't even understand what convergent evolution is, even after I explained it to you. The reptile that looks just like a hairy bipedal ape is still a reptile! That's what is so fascinating about convergent evolution. Thylacines looked just like placental canids, but they actually were marsupials and not canids at all. Their evolutionary lineage isn't even close to the canids. The resemblance was so profound that they were commonly called Tasmanian wolf!

Just when it looks really bad for your reasoning - it gets even worse. You suggested that we have transitional fossils between "ape" and "man". We don't. That is a red herring known as the "missing link". You say it's not missing. But the truth is that there really is no such thing as a "missing link" because of the conventions of taxonomy. A fossil is either declared "ape" or "human" and there cannot be something in between those two. Scientists understand this situation and know that there cannot be a true missing link because as soon as it was found it was declared either ape or human. "Missing link" is semantical and means nothing to real scientists. That won't prevent you from trying to use it in worthless argumentative tactics.

I can see right through you, young Skywalker.

 

[RayG]

And if the skeptics could actually analyse the evidence....in terms of "probabilities"....I'd have more respect for their ability to THINK.

Awww, now Sweaty, don't be trying to go all Aristotle on us, we can see right through it. You really should get off the mathematical kick and focus on some science. You know... observation... hypothesis... experimentation... conclusion... that type of thing.

It's wonderful, in your childish enthusiasm, that you want bigfoot to exist, but wanting it to exist ain't good enough. Repeatedly chanting a mantra won't make it happen, nor will clicking your heels, rubbing magic stones, or trying to circumnavigate the scientific method.

As it is....they only seem able to say "there's no proof" ....and then "analyse" the evidence using circular reasoning.

Interesting you chose the term 'circular reasoning', when that seems to be all you have concerning Joyce and her 23-year-old sighting.

kitakaze, in his attempt at analysing Joyce's sighting report and later phone call to me, was only able to come up with one reason why "something other than Bigfoot" (nutcase, liar, lousy memory) is the most likely explanation for both her report and phone call.

His reason......no OTHER good evidence for Bigfoot.

Well, we know there's no sense in talking to you about reasons or reasoning, you just don't want to walk down that path no matter what.

Bottom line.....when a skeptic "analyses" evidence "A"....they point to evidence "B", "C", "D". etc...and say "well, all that evidence is worthless, so "A" must be worthless too!!! (I did good, mommy!)

Where is your evidence for this claim? Personally, I take each piece of evidence as it's presented, and go from there, how about you?

And round and round we go....

Lovely little bit of circular reasoning....isn't it?!

Kinda like your support for Joyce's report? You know...

Sweaty wants bigfoot to be real...
Sweaty believes Joyce is telling him the truth about bigfoot...
Therefore bigfoot is real.

Oh, and speaking of wishful thinking, how goes your pointy-headed experiment?

And speaking of circular reasoning, how goes your list of reliable evidence?

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
Bottom line.....when a skeptic "analyses" evidence "A"....they point to evidence "B", "C", "D". etc...and say "well, all that evidence is worthless, so "A" must be worthless too!!! (I did good, mommy!)

Where is your evidence for this claim?

I gave it in the post at the top of this page, Ray. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
And round and round we go....

Lovely little bit of circular reasoning....isn't it?!

Kinda like your support for Joyce's report? You know...

Sweaty wants bigfoot to be real...
Sweaty believes Joyce is telling him the truth about bigfoot...
Therefore Bigfoot is real.

When and where did I conclude that Bigfoot is real?

I said that, from my conversation with both Joyce and her husband, the most likely explanation...to me, anyway...for her sighting report and phone call, is that she actually saw a Bigfoot and wanted to share her experience with someone who she knew would be receptive and respond positively to it.
"Most likely" does not necessarily mean "true".
Bigfoot may not exist....but the explanation that makes the MOST sense to me, after talking with Joyce....is that she did see a Bigfoot. That's what I think is the case, but I don't know it for sure.
There is still the possibility that she called me simply to lie to me.

Now, do me a favor.....go find the post where I said Bigfoot definitely does exist.

If you can't find one....I'll happily conclude that you're an idiot.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

The reptile that looks just like a hairy bipedal ape is still a reptile!

I know!

There are several different intermediate skulls between apes and modern humans....showing clearly that apes evolved into humans over the years.

Where is there even ONE transitional fossil between a croc, or any reptile, and a human???

Your post is one of the most idiotic ones I've seen on this board, William.
That's all the response it deserves, and will get.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

............

Where is there even ONE transitional fossil between a croc, or any reptile, and a human???
.......

Uhhh, SweatyFoot .. You missed the most important part...

Since when do we need fossils to show a species existed/exists ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Diogenes wrote:

Since when do we need fossils to show a species existed/exists ?

You missed the point, buddy.

The point is NOT a single species....it's a WHOLE LINE of species that's missing!
(Everything from lizard, or crocodile.....to human.) (kindof a BIG gap.)

Do you see the difference, Greg?

 

[William Parcher]

The point is NOT a single species....it's a WHOLE LINE of species that's missing!
(Everything from lizard, or crocodile.....to human.) (kindof a BIG gap.)

You shouldn't have said you understand convergent evolution because you clearly don't. There is no reason to ask for a fossil line from reptile to human (primate), because my hypothetical hairy bipedal reptile is still a reptile. It never became a primate. I have now said it is a reptile three times to you.

I normally wouldn't give candy to a stupid person like you, but I'm feeling generous. So....

Now imagine if this reptile were to put on a little Bigfoot suit...
"Look! It has a compliant gait and a mid-tarsal break!

 

[RayG]

When and where did I conclude that Bigfoot is real?

Are you saying you don't think bigfoot is real? That's not the impression I get from your fallacious argument.

I said that, from my conversation with both Joyce and her husband, the most likely explanation...to me, anyway...for her sighting report and phone call, is that she actually saw a Bigfoot and wanted to share her experience with someone who she knew would be receptive and respond positively to it.
"Most likely" does not necessarily mean "true".
Bigfoot may not exist....but the explanation that makes the MOST sense to me, after talking with Joyce....is that she did see a Bigfoot. That's what I think is the case, but I don't know it for sure.
There is still the possibility that she called me simply to lie to me.

Apparently you are only able to grasp two possibilities, Joyce saw a bigfoot, or Joyce is lying. You don't seem willing to entertain any other possibility. What makes you so certain Joyce is correctly recalling details that happened almost a quarter of a century ago?

As I wrote on the other forum those many moons ago:

A witness need not be blind or mentally challenged to be mistaken, given the number of factors that can affect our perception of something. (I believe I listed some of those)

Remember the unforutunate fellow killed by London police on the subway train because they thought he was a terrorist. Eyewitness accounts of the incident were quite unreliable.

Some said he was Asian - he was not (Brazilian)
Some said he jumped over the subway turnstile - he did not (went through the gate in a normal fashion)
Some said he was wearing a winter coat - he was not (denim jacket)
Some said he was wearing a bomb with wire hanging down from it - he was not
Some said he tripped and fell getting on the train - he did not (the police caused him to fall)
Some said the police challenged/warned him prior to shots being fired - they did not
Some said passengers were told to get off the train prior to the shooting - they were not
Some said he was shot 4, 5, 6, 8 or 11 times (11 in total)

How is it witnesses could be so mistaken? Surely whatever was initially reported must have been the truth. Surely at least some of the witnesses were credible people, well-educated, not on drugs, not blind, and not mentally challenged. Yet mistaken they were.

Now, do me a favor.....go find the post where I said Bigfoot definitely does exist.

If you can't find one....I'll happily conclude that you're an idiot.

Sweaty my little Troll, when you read written words, do you ever actually comprehend them?

Here, try to see if you can be a tad more observant:

Sweaty wants bigfoot to be real...
Sweaty believes Joyce is telling him the truth about bigfoot...
Therefore bigfoot is real.

Note to Sweaty: You seem to be avoiding any reference to your pointy-headed experiment, or the list of reliable evidence you've been asked for. Have you worked on either, or are you content to continue with your mindless drivel?

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Apparently you are only able to grasp two possibilities, Joyce saw a bigfoot, or Joyce is lying. You don't seem willing to entertain any other possibility. What makes you so certain Joyce is correctly recalling details that happened almost a quarter of a century ago?

Would now be an opportune time to embarrass Kevo with an umpteenth reference to having been shown either to be a liar or have a faulty memory in #1480? Why, yes it would. It would be an excellent time for that.

Of course, he may want to squirm up a much anticipated explanation for that or provide a commentary on reliable evidence but then again, it's low on his list of priorities.

Will Special Kevin be the next footer here (but of far, far lesser note and not speaking as a professional) to admit dishonesty? I very much doubt it.

 

[kitakaze]

From Jane Goodall's website:

Field research projects undertaken by members of the center include:

1. An investigation of meat-sharing and male mating strategies
2. A four-year study of the development and acquisition of termite-fishing skills in infant to ten-year-old chimpanzees
3. A study of vegetation change in and around Gombe National Park over the last 60 years
4. A study of social relationships between females
5. A study of paternity and genetic relationships among the chimpanzees using DNA extracted from feces and hair shed in nests.

Too bad bigfoot nests and poo aren't allowing similar studies. Honestly, I don't know how anyone can have a serious interest in the bigfoot phenomenom and not in due course wind up skeptical in regards to their existence. Indeed, the believers are proving to be more interesting and worthy of study than our hairy friends.

I would like to write an essay entitled 'Propagation of a Modern Myth: A Study of the Bigfoot Phenomenom and it's Believers'. Actually, I think that all of us regular BF skeptic posters in this thread should work as a team to put something like that together but maybe broader and more focused on being informative to new inductees into the self-perpetuating bigfoot belief machine. I'm thinking of it taking the form of a website that could serve to counter all the creduloid ones.

I'm kinda just thinking out loud but I'm interested in what the rest of you think about an organized effort to counter bigfoot credulity. I mean just in this thread alone we've buried some really lame bigfoot myths. I think we should make an effort to take what we've accomplished and go further and reach people who might not be particularily interested in a skeptics forum.

 

[kitakaze]

An obnoxious post for an obnoxious kid.

BTW, Kevin, I couldn't help but notice YOU changed your avatar....AND....sig so as to drop the pathetic aping of LAL's profile. It would seem that YOU do in fact care how others here regard....you. It's cute that you're making efforts to be taken more....seriously but still unfortunate that YOU don't choose to do so in a way that's more....meaningful, ........like MAKING SOME EFFORT at following through on the things YOU say you will do.

Maybe while you're....talking to Santa and engaging in....your typical semantic masturbation you could also ask him for some evidence that is not easily attributable to something other than living sasquatches, ....ellipsis-fit boy.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

There is no reason to ask for a fossil line from reptile to human (primate), because my hypothetical hairy bipedal reptile is still a reptile. It never became a primate. I have now said it is a reptile three times to you.

You're right, William...
I made a technical error in the 2nd line in this quote....

The point is NOT a single species....it's a WHOLE LINE of species that's missing!
(Everything from lizard, or crocodile.....to human.) (kindof a BIG gap.)

...But it doesn't change the point that I'm making.

I should have written "to a human-like creature", instead of "to human".

Bigfoot is generally described as very human-looking, in almost every way. The footprints found are very human-like.

Therefore, if Bigfoot is actually a reptile, then there had to have been a
whole line of species in-between some known reptile....all the way up to a bi-pedal human-like reptile.

The point still remains......a COMPLETE LINE would have to be missing from the evolutionary tree, with regards to fossils. Not just ONE species.
There are NO transitional forms between 4-legged reptiles and upright-walking reptiles that very closely resemble humans.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It would seem that YOU do in fact care how others here regard....you.

Only the obnoxious know for sure.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Will Special Kevin be the next footer here.... to admit dishonesty?

No. I haven't been dishonest in any of my posts.

 

[kitakaze]

It would seem that YOU do in fact care how others here regard....you.

Only the obnoxious know for sure.

That was awesome, real swift. We must frame that one.

Will Special Kevin be the next footer here (but of far, far lesser note and not speaking as a professional) to admit dishonesty? I very much doubt it.

No. I haven't been dishonest in any of my posts.

Since you typically seem to not be getting the point I was implying that you had a faulty memory just like the rest of us. I don't think you've been dishonest here (though I had my doubts when I posted what seemed like a picture of you), just really ignorant and childish.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Are you saying you don't think bigfoot is real? That's not the impression I get from your fallacious argument.

I said in my post...

the explanation that makes the MOST sense to me, after talking with Joyce....is that she did see a Bigfoot. That's what I think is the case, but I don't know it for sure.

It's very clear, and easy to understand. I think Bigfoot exists...but I don't know it for sure, as a definite.
I haven't said.... "Therefore, Bigfoot IS real."
I would, and do say......"Therefore, there's a high probability that Bigfoot exists".

Apparently you are only able to grasp two possibilities, Joyce saw a bigfoot, or Joyce is lying. You don't seem willing to entertain any other possibility. What makes you so certain Joyce is correctly recalling details that happened almost a quarter of a century ago?

From my analysis of her report, and phone conversation....the only two explanations which I can see as plausible, or having something more than an extremely small chance of being the true explanation...are that she was either:
A) lying....or
B ) telling me the truth, and did see a Bigfoot.

I don't see "faulty memory" as being a true possibility in this case, because it would have to have been a shared faulty memory, between her and her husband, and possibly her daughter, too.
In addition, which details could even have been remembered incorrectly to turn a "bear" sighting into a Bigfoot sighting, years later?

I don't see "misidentification" as a real possibility in this case, for a few reasons:
1) The sighting was in daylight,
2) It was out in the open,
3) It was at fairly close range,
4) They watched it walking away, turning back to look at them, for approx. a minute or two.
She said it walked off through an open cow pasture...and she wrote in the report the sighting took "less than 5 minutes". Putting those together, it's safe to say they were watching it for a good minute or two.
That's quite a bit of time to distinguish between a bear and a Primate........or Reptile.

I don't see "nutcase" as a true possibility in this case, because her husband supported her sighting account.
Based on that fact, how could the whole story have been MADE-UP by Joyce? Her husband must have read her report on Bfro's site...which mentions their daughter being in the car. Do you think, at some point, he actually talked to his daughter about the sighting?
If he did, she would have said to him...."Sorry, Dad...mom is nuts" ....and he, in turn, would have said to me..."Sorry dude, Joyce is nuts".

 

[William Parcher]

You're right, William...
I made a technical error in the 2nd line in this quote....

Yeah, no kidding you did.

...But it doesn't change the point that I'm making.

I know, and that point remains self-contradictory.

I should have written "to a human-like creature", instead of "to human". Bigfoot is generally described as very human-looking, in almost every way. The footprints found are very human-like. Therefore, if Bigfoot is actually a reptile, then there had to have been a whole line of species in-between some known reptile....all the way up to a bi-pedal human-like reptile.

Your primate-Bigfoot is just as hypothetical as my reptile-Bigfoot. Therefore they must be treated the same in some fundamental ways. If you want to force some "knowable" lineage upon the reptile, then you have to do the same for the primate.

The point still remains......a COMPLETE LINE would have to be missing from the evolutionary tree, with regards to fossils. Not just ONE species. There are NO transitional forms between 4-legged reptiles and upright-walking reptiles that very closely resemble humans.

There are no transitional fossilized forms that have been found between a hypothetical ancestor of the hypothetical modern primate-Bigfoot and the proposed animal itself (Patty).

Since the reptile-Bigfoot and the primate-Bigfoot are purely hypothetical animals without any confirmation ... I get to play the same silly games that you do. I can assure you that when you are presented with the same kinds of arguments that you yourself perpetuate - you will reject them as being ridiculous desperate straw-grasping. If you have any sense of self-preservation you will ditch this particular argument with me right now. Because as it is, when you argue against the reptile-Bigfoot you reduce the justification of a hypothetical Bigfoot in any form (primate or reptile).

 

[LAL]

Baby Dangling, I guess I didn't explain my answer well enough to understood by you. I wasn't implying that Bigfoot-as-reptile is just as bizarre as Bigfoot-as-primate. It's not. What I meant was Bigfoot-as-reptile is just as bizarre as the sum total description of Bigfoot given by believers. It must be described as an animal that actively and successfully avoids confirmation for centuries on end. Bigfoot is extremely stingy about giving up its DNA in any form - no other animal has accomplished that. It must be described as an animal that is obviously very fearful of humans but with no reasonable cause for that fear. Those are very bizarre features of Bigfoot that are given to us by the believers. But that is just a few bizarre descriptions given; there are plenty of others. My strong opinion is that they have no choice other than to describe Bigfoot in very bizarre ways.

I'm having trouble finding you through all the strawmen. Ah, there you are, Peter.

There's been a study showing people who claim alien abduction suffered from sleep paralysis. Has anyone done a study showing this is the case with reasonable people who, with family and a friends, insist on seeing large hairy hominds that aren't there? Why is it serious researchers continue to find prints and other signs in their areas of interest with both Ray Wallace and Paul Freeman dead? The idea that a specialist in primate foot anatomy can't spot fakes or that the only expert in ape fingerprints can't tell the difference between a dermal ridge and a pouring line is laughable.

There's DNA. It was just too fragmented for proper sequencing. Tissue is needed. Most animals don't leave a lot of that lying around (unless they're dead.)

There haven't been attempts to confirm this animal for centuries on end although reports go back that far.

There are reports of these animals beating a hasty retrreat, hanging around checking out the witness or witnesses, going on about their business in an unconcerned sort of way, and even a few reports of possible aggression, so where is this "very fearful of humans" coming from? Black bears exhibit the same sort of behavior.

Since we "know" an unidentified ape can't exist in North America, we "know" all the evidence must be concocted or misidentified and that's the end of that. Am I getting that straight?