Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote..as he drank:

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

Wanna splain that a little bit, sir?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

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.

And how is "not easily attributable" determined...when it comes to analysing a given piece of Bigfoot evidence?

That's too vague....a skeptic will VERY EASILY attribute the evidence to other possible explanations....while a Bleeeeever will "not easily attribute" it to those other explanations.

 

[RayG]

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?

You keep confusing evidence with proof.

evidence = information that helps form a conclusion (ie. footprint)

proof = factual information that verifies a conclusion (ie. actual foot)

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

Since you have some sort of 'reliable evidence' list, why don't you tell us?

That's too vague....a skeptic will VERY EASILY attribute the evidence to other possible explanations....while a Bleeeeever will "not easily attribute" it to those other explanations.

BINGO! The skeptic will try to entertain and eliminate all other possible explanations/suspects before arriving at a conclusion, while the believer will cling to the notion that bigfoot was responsible no matter what.

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

Since you have some sort of 'reliable evidence' list, why don't you tell us?

Skeptics use the phrase "reliable evidence"...I don't.

Since Ray has no desire to help define and explain the meaning of the phrase......are there any other skeptics who can do so?

Or do skeptics use it without actually understanding what it means?

If that's the case....they literally DON'T KNOW what they're talking about!

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
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 just read a post on another board this morning in which a member said that her husband told her he has seen a Bigfoot.
Now....does a husband telling his own WIFE something like that carry ANY weight at all...from the wife's point-of-view?
Should she refuse to believe her husband, no matter how much he insists it's the truth, and call him a liar...because a "Bigfoot sighting" can EASILY be attributed to an alternate explanation...such as lying?

Also....The existence of Bigfoot wouldn't contradict anything that's known to exist....as far as I know.

 

[Correa Neto]

So, are "bigfeet-are-real defenders" still trying to convince "evil denialist" skeptics and "scoffic close-minded" mainstream scientists to lower their evidence/data quality standards?

What about being being honest and say something like "I believe they are real, but I can't really present any really reliable evidence to back this""?

 

[kitakaze]

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

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.

Looks like the 'later' is becoming a 'someday' for Kevin answering questions which are difficult for him. Meanwhile, he has absolutely no problem taking himself seriously when saying that people aren't his addressing his questions.

 

[kitakaze]

I just read a post on another board this morning in which a member said that her husband told her he has seen a Bigfoot.
Now....does a husband telling his own WIFE something like that carry ANY weight at all...from the wife's point-of-view?
Should she refuse to believe her husband, no matter how much he insists it's the truth, and call him a liar...because a "Bigfoot sighting" can EASILY be attributed to an alternate explanation...such as lying?

Also....The existence of Bigfoot wouldn't contradict anything that's known to exist....as far as I know.

I hope you're not talking about recently-wed head of the AIBR Kathy Strain/Hairy Man, creduloid. Just in case you are...
Where did Kathy meet her husband? A bigfoot conference. I wonder if he claimed a sighting at the conference when meeting this shining star of bigfootery or after they exchanged their vows. Hmm. I wonder if anyone into bigfootery has ever been caught being dishonest about something? *crickets*

Sweaty, if you are not referring to Hairy Man, can you now direct us to the board and post where you read this?

 

[kitakaze]

So, are "bigfeet-are-real defenders" still trying to convince "evil denialist" skeptics and "scoffic close-minded" mainstream scientists to lower their evidence/data quality standards?

Why, yes they are. In very sad and pathetic way.

What about being being honest and say something like "I believe they are real, but I can't really present any really reliable evidence to back this""?

I'm guessing some kind of miture of desparation/stubborness/self-delusion. I really wish they'd spare all of us and do that, we'd be having a totally different conversation if they could just get real and do so.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, there is evidence for Bigfoot's existence.
The very large number of reported [...] sightings are evidence for it's existence.

By the same token, we have evidence that UFOs exist, that vampires exist, that homeopathy works, that magnets can cure cancer, that Feng Shui can help improve your life, etc.

and unreported,

Speculation. Also, "unreported sightings" are not evidence. Otherwise that'd be an argument from ignorance.

The question is...is the evidence weak or strong?

Sightings ? Weak. Very weak. Otherwise we also have strong evidence that UFOs exist, that vampires exist, that homeopathy works, that magnets can cure cancer, that Feng Shui can help improve your life, etc.

First...it's not a matter of speculating, as much as determining the probability of Bigfoot's existence.

How can you do that without speculating ?

That's done by intelligently and scientifically analysing the evidence, and assigning the proper "weight" to it.

Which is known to us as "speculation".

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?"

Seriously ? If I claimed the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, and that there've been many sightings of this thing, would that count ?

 

[kitakaze]

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.

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.

Wanna splain that a little bit, sir?

And how is "not easily attributable" determined...when it comes to analysing a given piece of Bigfoot evidence?

That's too vague....a skeptic will VERY EASILY attribute the evidence to other possible explanations....while a Bleeeeever will "not easily attribute" it to those other explanations.

Sightings are the weakest evidence to try and support your theory that sasquatches exist. Misidentification, hoaxing, and faulty memory have beyond any shadow of a doubt been proven to occur with bigfoot sightings claims. In no case of a sighting claim has this been reliably shown not to be the case.

 

[Belz...]

That's too vague....a skeptic will VERY EASILY attribute the evidence to other possible explanations....

Which is why eyewitness testimony isn't "reliable".

Now....does a husband telling his own WIFE something like that carry ANY weight at all...from the wife's point-of-view?
Should she refuse to believe her husband, no matter how much he insists it's the truth, and call him a liar...because a "Bigfoot sighting" can EASILY be attributed to an alternate explanation...such as lying?

False dichotomy. There are other possibilities. It doesn't matter who tells you, and appeals to personal relationships or to emotions will not prove a thing. She can choose to believe him, though.

Also....The existence of Bigfoot wouldn't contradict anything that's known to exist....as far as I know.

That's true. However, it would be hard to explain why no specimen was ever observed in north america by biologists, considering we're not exactly in a remote location covered with jungles.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, This question:

And how is "not easily attributable" determined...when it comes to analysing a given piece of Bigfoot evidence?

That's too vague....a skeptic will VERY EASILY attribute the evidence to other possible explanations....while a Bleeeeever will "not easily attribute" it to those other explanations.

Is answered here:

BINGO! The skeptic will try to entertain and eliminate all other possible explanations/suspects before arriving at a conclusion, while the believer will cling to the notion that bigfoot was responsible no matter what.

Specifically, 'not easily attributable' is determined by taking into account what is known to occur with evidence claimed to have been caused by a real sasquatch. i.e., hoaxing and misidentification.

You keep confusing evidence with proof.

evidence = information that helps form a conclusion (ie. footprint)

proof = factual information that verifies a conclusion (ie. actual foot)

Since you have some sort of 'reliable evidence' list, why don't you tell us?



BINGO! The skeptic will try to entertain and eliminate all other possible explanations/suspects before arriving at a conclusion, while the believer will cling to the notion that bigfoot was responsible no matter what.

RayG

Skeptics use the phrase "reliable evidence"...I don't.

Since Ray has no desire to help define and explain the meaning of the phrase......are there any other skeptics who can do so?

Or do skeptics use it without actually understanding what it means?

If that's the case....they literally DON'T KNOW what they're talking about!

Now that reliable evidence has once again been explained to you, perhaps you'd like to direct our attention to some regarding bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

LAL in response to a poster at the BFF wondering if Patty was the last of her kind. Post #14 of this BFF thread, 'Polling All Skeptics':

There were smaller prints found in the area that indicate she had offspring. Long live son (or daughter) of Patty! Her cousins seem to be alive and well in Washington State, Canada, and a few other places.

It's too bad she didn't leave her body to science.

In addition to the statement of fact, once again I draw attention to the list that LAL herself has posted:

Alaska 19
Arizona 38
Arkansas 64
California 347
Colorado 84
Connecticut 4
Delaware 2
Florida 106
Georgia 37
Hawaii
Idaho 49
Illinois 55
Indiana 47
Iowa 35
Kansas 26
Kentucky 46
Louisiana 32
Maine 13
Maryland 25
Massachusetts 10
Michigan 69
Minnesota 27
Mississippi 17
Missouri 52
Montana 23
Nebraska 7
Nevada 7
New Hampshire 9
New Jersey 35
New Mexico 30
New York 84
North Carolina 45
North Dakota 5
Ohio 190
Oklahoma 62
Oregon 197
Pennsylvania 78
Rhode Island 2
South Carolina 31
South Dakota 13
Tennessee 51
Texas 160
Utah 38
Vermont 6
Virginia 21
Washington 402
West Virginia 45
Wisconsin 41
Wyoming 24

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/#usa

Why is it so many footers act this way when presenting 'factual' information?

 

[William Parcher]

Why is it so many footers act this way when presenting 'factual' information?

Because Bigfootery is some kind of a religion. It should never be mistaken for science, or even something like science. The closest it gets is creation of data sets, like the above abomination.

It is a complete insult to critically thinking people. It also appears to not be marketed towards those types anyway. Bigfootery is for Bigfooters.

 

[kitakaze]

I said I was going to post all the times that Sweaty has asked for and received a definition of reliable evidence but after reviewing them, by the sheer numbers and the also the numbers of times he obfuscates, has a semantic fit, and squirms with the concept of evidence in general, I think I'd feel like I was spamming with such a large post with a point already obvious.

 

[kitakaze]

Because Bigfootery is some kind of a religion.

As may be apparent I've gone back to paying attention to the BFF to a limited extent and that analogy couldn't be more true. How many times do you here the phrase there 'keep the faith'? It's really fascinating from a sociological perspective to just observe how the whole thing carries on. Like you, I adore the legend, and I find the whole phenomenom provides so many insights into human nature. Of course, as I've endlessly said, I'd dearly love a serving of crow for bigfoot but I just see no reason to anticipate one.

I'm also disappointed that the only proponent who is currently trying to support BF existence here is a BFF reject troll.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Quote:
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?"

Seriously ? If I claimed the universe was laid like a giant egg by a cosmic-sized brown chicken, and that there've been many sightings of this thing, would that count ?

I was just joking, belz.

As far as a sighting report of a "Cosmic Chicken" carrying some weight....it doesn't.
Since there's obviously no such thing, it's not a good analogy to work with.
UFO's are a much better analogy.....because many people report seeing them, and they may indeed exist.

Did you hear about the recent UFO sighting over O'Hare Int'l Airport by multiple witnesses?
Here's are two links to the story....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_Sighting_Nov_7th,2006

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread236709/pg1

Try to relax kitakaze....I'll get to your questions later tonight....I promises.

 

[RayG]

Did you hear about the recent UFO sighting over O'Hare Int'l Airport by multiple witnesses?
Here's are two links to the story....

Here's another on the same story but with a bit more skeptical slant:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/01/02/25212.aspx

They refer to this page with lots of pics of cloud UFOs:

http://pic1.funtigo.com/valuca/?g=25544746&cr=1

RayG

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Misidentification, hoaxing, and faulty memory have beyond any shadow of a doubt been proven to occur with bigfoot sightings claims. In no case of a sighting claim has this been reliably shown not to be the case.

How could those be "reliably shown NOT to be the case"?

Or in other words...
Exactly how can a sighting report be "reliably" shown to be a real Bigfoot sighting?