Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

I'm not interested in probabilities. Only reality.

But since we don't have proof...at the moment...all we can do is analyse the evidence in terms of it's "probabilities".
Evidence carries "weight"....and it's measured in "probabilities", or "odds".
It doesn't mean anything definite. That's something the skeptics don't seem to understand.

The purpose of a Bigfoot discussion board, or a thread, is to try to determine the chances, the likelihood, of Bigfoot being real....not just to say "we don't have proof".
If someone doesn't want to consider "probabilities"....well, then maybe...

SweatyYeti wrote:
As it is....they only seem able to say "there's no proof" ....and then "analyse" the evidence using circular reasoning.
Deep thinkers...the lot of them.

What evidence ? If there's no proof...

Why do we need to have PROOF of something in order to have EVIDENCE of it? Can you explain that?

SweatyYeti wrote:
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!)

Well, that might be a valid criticism. However I've never seen a piece of bigfoot evidence that stands on its own, either.

What do you mean by "stand on it's own"? Proof??

Originally Posted by Kitakaze
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"...

No, he's not. He's using Occam's Razor. As far as eyewitness testimony is concerned, without corroborating, physical evidence, the most likely explanation is often, in such cases, fraud or simple mistake. I'm not saying it is or isn't in this case. Just pointing that out.

I don't care which brand of razor he shaves with......the bottom line is........he's analysing evidence "A" by pointing to evidence "B"....instead of analysing a given piece of evidence based on the specifics, the details of the piece of evidence itself.

SweatyYeti wrote:
"Most likely" does not necessarily mean "true".

I'd like to know why you think it's more likely, however.

I gave my reasoning in post #2618.

SweatyYeti wrote:
There are several different intermediate skulls between apes and modern humans....

Impossible, since apes aren't our ancestors.

I mean simply that there are intermediate, transitional forms of primates in-between ape, or monkeys, and human.
Neanderthal skulls have some characteristics that are APE-like.
I'm not getting into the details of the exact lineage....it's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Technicalities.......a skeptic's best friend.

 

[kitakaze]

But since we don't have proof...at the moment...all we can do is analyse the evidence in terms of "probabilities".

Kevin, what evidence is there that is highly probable as being attributable to a living sasquatch and why is it so?

Evidence carries "weight"....and it's measured in "probabilities", or "odds".

Can you elaborate on this point, 'evidence is measured in probabilities'?

That's what the purpose of a Bigfoot discussion board, or a thread, is for.....to try to determine the chances, the likelihood, of Bigfoot being real.
If someone doesn't want to consider "probabilities"....then a discussion board is not exactly the place for them.

I'm sorry, what? What exactly do you think is the purpose of these BF related threads on this board?

Why do we need to have PROOF of something in order to have EVIDENCE of it? Can you explain that?

What reliable evidence of bigfoot do we have or are you just talking about any old thing attributed to sasquatch?

I don't care which type of razor he shaves with......the bottom line is........he's analysing evidence "A" by pointing to evidence "B"....instead of analysing a given piece of evidence based on the specifics, the details of the piece of evidence itself.

Brilliant. I'm sorry, what piece of evidence was I given and failed to 'analyse'.

I mean simply that there are intermediate, transitional forms of primates in-between ape, or monkeys, and human.
Neanderthal skulls have some characteristics that are APE-like.
I'm not getting into the details of the exact lineage....it's irrelevant to the point I was making.
Technicalities.......a skeptic's best friend when trying to dodge a simple point.

Kevin, will we ever see you without your pants down?

 

[LTC8K6]

"Do you see any flippin' sasquatches around here?"

The whole story in one sentence...

 

[Belz...]

But since we don't have proof...at the moment...all we can do is analyse the evidence in terms of it's "probabilities".

Well, I disagree, but pray tell, how would you calculate such "probabilities" ?

Evidence carries "weight"....and it's measured in "probabilities", or "odds".
It doesn't mean anything definite. That's something the skeptics don't seem to understand.

By that standard, NOTHING means anything definite. Solipsism isn't my cup of tea.

Why do we need to have PROOF of something in order to have EVIDENCE of it? Can you explain that?

I think you misunderstood what I said. Is there or is there not evidence for bigfoot's existence ? Speculating about probabilities of bigfeet is as pointless as speculating about the Great Brown Chicken if there's no reason to believe it actually might exist.

What do you mean by "stand on it's own"? Proof??

I can't think of another way to word it, much. Each piece of evidence must be able to withstand scrutiny. The "big picture" is simply made of those pieces.

I don't care which brand of razor he shaves with......the bottom line is........he's analysing evidence "A" by pointing to evidence "B"....instead of analysing a given piece of evidence based on the specifics, the details of the piece of evidence itself.

My point is that eyewitness tesimony is the worst possible kind of evidence, so it's difficult to give it much weight when it's sparse and in contradiction with what's known of reality.

I gave my reasoning in post #2618.

You mean this :

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.

1), 2), 3) and 4) are part of the testimony, are they not ?

I mean simply that there are intermediate, transitional forms of primates in-between ape, or monkeys, and human.
Neanderthal skulls have some characteristics that are APE-like.
I'm not getting into the details of the exact lineage....it's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Technicalities.......a skeptic's best friend.

It's far from beign a technicality. There cannot ever be a transition between brother and sister, because one didn't spawn the other. Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

 

[LTC8K6]

Can you determine the structure of a foot from a copy of a footprint? The copy being made by pressing a cast into soil?

Can you even do so from an original footprint?

Let's start with that.

This is an unknown foot, mind you. All we have are footprints which look basically like large human feet.

From that, we have a whole foot anatomy espoused and accepted by footers.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8k6 wrote:

"Do you see any flippin' sasquatches around here?"
The whole story in one sentence...

Thanks LTC for giving us a fresh example of what I mentioned in my post.
Namely this...

The purpose of a Bigfoot discussion board, or a thread, is to try to determine the chances, the likelihood, of Bigfoot being real....not just to say "we don't have proof".

A skeptic's favorite line! "Where's the body?"

I'll respond to Belz's and kitakaze's posts later. I'm on my lunch break right now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Sorry, but I merely found that line from RayG's video link funny.

Don't make too much more out of it than that.

 

[kitakaze]

A skeptic's favorite line! "Where's the body?"

I'm personally rather fond of 'where's the reliable evidence?'.

Let's try some variations:

Where's the DNA that we should be finding associated with 'nests'?

Where's the reliable evidence that one should expect to find for an animal reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida?

Where's the discernable affect that such a creature should be having in it's environment?

Where's the reliable evidence that one would expect to find for a creature that seems to inhabit basically any areas with sufficient cover?

Where's the fossil record of a bigfoot-type creature anywhere in NA?

Where's the increase in track finds that we should be seeing comensurate with the increase of active searching for this pan-continental beast?

Where's the increase of quality images we should be seeing comensurate with the increase of active searching for this pan-continental beast?

Where's the reliable evidence that should be forthcoming comensurate with this pan-continental beast's reduction of habitat?

I'll respond to Belz's and kitakaze's posts later. I'm on my lunch break right now.

Hopefully, the 'later' doesn't become the 'someday' that is typical of you when you get difficult questions.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...

I'll respond to Belz's and kitakaze's posts later. I'm on my lunch break right now.

Don't forget your nap ..

 

[kitakaze]

I'll respond to Belz's and kitakaze's posts later. I'm on my lunch break right now.

Don't forget your nap ..

I'm guessing he takes those during biology class. I'm personally inspired to take one when I see an all caps/bolding/emoticon/ellipsis-fit possibilties/probabilities rant coming down the pike.

 

[kitakaze]

Hairy Man, I can't help but notice your absence of late. I'm wondering if you're interested in addressing this post. As head of the Alliance of Independant Bigfoot Researchers, I'm hoping you're still interested in a dialogue with us here at the JREF. Also, it's good to see that you found the recent article on female chimps utilizing spears interesting enough to post on your website.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'm personally rather fond of 'where's the reliable evidence?'.

Can you explain what makes evidence "reliable" again, kitakaze?
Or can you provide a link to the page where it was explained before?

I don't have the time to back looking for it.

 

[RayG]

Can you explain what makes evidence "reliable" again, kitakaze?

You know... reliable... as in dependable, accurate, honest, authentic, consistent, solid, reputable, credible, factual, legitimate, or sound.*

In a nutshell, evidence that can be depended upon with confident certainty.**

Do you have your list yet?

RayG

* http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/reliable
** http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reliable

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Can you explain what makes evidence "reliable" again, kitakaze?
Or can you provide a link to the page where it was explained before?

I don't have the time to back looking for it.

It's truly hilarious how many times you've tried your semantic masturbation and tried to squirm with this. The most recent time I reminded you would be when I commented on you dithering with it in your sig. Sometime today I'm going to have to go back and pull up everytime you've questioned a definition of reliable evidence. For now, let's just humour your feign of faulty memory and let you play out your pathetic little attempts at deflecting from a lack of reliable evidence. *sigh* Reliable evidence where it pertains to sasquatch is evidence that is not easily attributable to something other (as in a known source) than living sasquatches. No, your little Joyce-capade does not qualify. There's the hand cream, don't hurt yourself.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Why do we need to have PROOF of something in order to have EVIDENCE of it? Can you explain that?

I think you misunderstood what I said. Is there or is there not evidence for bigfoot's existence ?

Yes, there is evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The very large number of reported, and unreported, sightings are evidence for it's existence.
The question is...is the evidence weak or strong?

Speculating about probabilities of bigfeet is as pointless as speculating about the Great Brown Chicken if there's no reason to believe it actually might exist.

First...it's not a matter of speculating, as much as determining the probability of Bigfoot's existence.
That's done by intelligently and scientifically analysing the evidence, and assigning the proper "weight" to it.

In the case of the "Great Brown Chicken"....it's more a question of "how long to cook it" than it is "is it real?"

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Do you have your list yet?

Yup...

1) Turtle Food
2) Beans
3) Soup (Great Brown Chicken)
4) Carburetor

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

It's truly hilarious...

Truly

 

[kitakaze]

Yes, there is evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The very large number of reported, and unreported, sightings are evidence for it's existence.
The question is...is the evidence weak or strong?

Weak, as in not reliable, as in not easily attributable to something other real bigfeet.

First...it's not a matter of speculating, as much as determining the probability of Bigfoot's existence.
That's done by intelligently and scientifically analysing the evidence, and assigning the proper "weight" to it.

In the case of the "Great Brown Chicken"....it's more a question of "how long to cook it" than it is "is it real?"

Would you like a few litres of weak coffee?

 

[kitakaze]

Yup...

1) Turtle Food
2) Beans
3) Soup (Great Brown Chicken)
4) Carburetor

Truly

Sweaty, you are a pathetic troll. Get a life.

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

You know... reliable... as in dependable, accurate, honest, authentic, consistent, solid, reputable, credible, factual, legitimate, or sound.*

In a nutshell, evidence that can be depended upon with confident certainty.**

In the case of a sighting report....how do you determine that it is, indeed...
"accurate"...or honest...or solid...or factual...or sound???

Those terms mean "proof", don't they?

What is the difference between "reliable evidence" and "proof"?