Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAL said:
Personally, I didn't encounter anything in a newspaper about anything sasquatch at all until March of 1969. National Wildlife did a story on the PGF

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/wildlife1968.htm
Click to expand...

Whoa! That article had the feet at 17 inches ! About an 18% exaggeration ..

But because of the publicity from Argosy and his national television appearances, Patterson
has been able to plan another expedition to Bluff Creek, a year-long project
beginning in May of this year. It will be one of the largest and best-run
search expeditions to date with every participant carrying a camera, and
the capture plan built around a new tranquilizer gun reportedly rifle-accurate
to a range of several hundred feet.
Click to expand...


Hmmm... Wonder how that turned out?
 
LAL said:
There've been a number of fecal analyses. One turned up some interesting parasites. Plenty of bacterial DNA showed up in another. Body cells of animals eaten show up and so does plant DNA. Now, try to sort all that out.
Click to expand...
Funny how they go right ahead and do that. From 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.
Click to expand...
LAL said:
It would be easier if sasquatches used pillows. It's not known for certain they build sleeping nests.
Click to expand...
Seriously, some of you guys make it too easy. Head of AIBR, Hairy Man/Kathy strain on finding a bigfoot nest. They claim nest finds when they need some 'evidence' and then give some anecdotes how they don't make nests when it's shown how nests yield DNA. Typical.:rolleyes:
LAL said:
Ever seen a forest floor? A seven mile long double trackway was followed 7 miles in snow, but was lost in forest. The PNW is particularly difficult because of the springy ground cover.
Click to expand...
Funny how we can track every thing else through the woods. Didn't your seven miles in snow devolve to seven miles from town after being questioned?
LAL said:
It was a long-dead Woodland Bison. The Teslin villagers has several sightings, but evidently not of that bison.
Click to expand...
Evidently, hmm? Yes, sightings are quite reliable. Just don't tell that to the London police or the family of the poor guy they shot 11 times in the subway.
 
LAL said:
You'd be wrong. That was from her.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I'm sure it was. I'd expect bigfootery's anthropologist/archaeologist rising star to try and pass of some gem like 'because they're hateful' when accounting for her reluctance to continue posting at the JREF. Too bad she dug her own hole discrediting herself by getting completely busted trying to browbeat with some made up malarkey she knew from the beginning wasn't true (kooshdakhaa ring a bell?) . She did that all by herself in the process of a very civil discussion. The nice thing about someone with such a small post count is that it's very easy to go and check if the 'they're hateful' line has any merit.

Yeah, we've seen how the AIBR head acts when getting the tough questions. I wonder how many times before she's successfully deflected tough questions by pulling that shtick elsewhere. I'm quite sure she's plenty irritated it didn't work here. Be sure to tell her she's always welcome to come back, a proper introduction won't be necessary. Maybe you could pass her this question concerning the mission statement on her organizations website.
 
belz wrote:
And yet you want to discuss the "probabilities" of something not proven to exist.

Yeah, right.
Click to expand...
Yeah........that's right! :D

That's the WHOLE purpose of a Bigfoot thread!!!

It's also the WHOLE reason for the BFF's existence.....to discuss the evidence for Bigfoot...which, short of proof.....deals ONLY in the odds, or the probability of Bigfoot's existence.

"And YET, you DARE to discuss the probability of Bigfoot's existence!!!
Oh....the HORRORS!!!" :eek:
 
kitakaze said:
Oh yes, I'm sure it was. I'd expect bigfootery's anthropologist/archaeologist rising star to try and pass of some gem like 'because they're hateful' when accounting for her reluctance to continue posting at the JREF. Too bad she dug her own hole discrediting herself by getting completely busted trying to browbeat with some made up malarkey she knew from the beginning wasn't true (kooshdakhaa ring a bell?) . She did that all by herself in the process of a very civil discussion. The nice thing about someone with such a small post count is that it's very easy to go and check if the 'they're hateful' line has any merit.

Yeah, we've seen how the AIBR head acts when getting the tough questions. I wonder how many times before she's successfully deflected tough questions by pulling that shtick elsewhere. I'm quite sure she's plenty irritated it didn't work here. Be sure to tell her she's always welcome to come back, a proper introduction won't be necessary. Maybe you could pass her this question concerning the mission statement on her organizations website.
Click to expand...

Ah, somehow…someway, I knew you were still posting about me!

First, I didn’t say everyone on this board was hateful. I happen to like desertyeti very much. Correa and LTC have been nothing but respectful.

What I said specifically is the reason I wasn’t posting is because you are creeping me out. I haven’t posted since Feb. 23rd, and yet you have posted something about me everyday since then. I find that very disturbing.

Secondly, why are you still having such heartburn about the whole kushtaka/kooshdakhaa issue? Let’s lay this out on the table…I stated that they were two separate names; you said they were the same; I said you were wrong, look it up in a language dictionary; you then posted a good 15 times about it; I posted I was wrong and I apologized. How exactly did I dig myself a hole in three posts? Why are you blowing this so out of proportion? Did I state, “I declare on my reputation that I am all knowing and you should bow down to me?” Nope…I made a statement, I was wrong, I apologized. I suspect I could go through your posts and find a similar wrong statements that you apologized for (as we could for everyone, as you know, perfect people are more elusive than bigfoot).

However, I’d like to remind you that you stated in post #2574 that “I will not pursue the matter further beyond this post nor seek to exploit your admission” and yet you have done exactly that at least three times (including above). I was not dishonest in my statements…I was wrong. You however, sir, are the one who is being dishonest...you aren’t keeping your word. And frankly, if you can’t tell the difference between being wrong and being dishonest, I don’t know what to say.

I am very confident in my own honesty, credibility, integrity, and professionalism. If you feel somehow that I am a detriment to my profession, you are more than welcome to contact my National Forest, the Pacific Southwest Regional Archaeologist, and the local tribes I work with. If you feel I'm a detriment to bigfooting, please feel free to take your charges to the BFF or the AIBR Board (who have the power to reprimand me). Otherwise, I would suggest you move on and stop humping my leg.
 
Last edited:
drapier wrote:
Once the skeptics to admit to a certain probability that a sighting or other piece of evidence is in fact evidence of bigfoot, then the believers will add up all the 1% and 2% figures across the thousands of footprints and inconclusive hair samples and claim that there's a quadrillion percent likelihood that bigfoot exists.
Click to expand...
The scientific mind doesn't look at the evidence and "weigh" it according to what someone else is going to say about it afterwards.
Only "intellectual cowards" do that.

Since we don't know whether bigfoot exists at all, it's impossible to speculate on probability.
Click to expand...
This is the CLASSIC skeptic's mantra...."without PROOF....there is no EVIDENCE".

They have it exactly backwards.

People don't go looking for PROOF of something, without there first being EVIDENCE of it's existence.

So, the correct statement would be..."without EVIDENCE...there'll never be any PROOF."

A good example is the Great Pumpkin.
Nobody actually goes out looking for the Great Pumpkin at Halloween....because there is NO evidence for it's existence.
Without any evidence....there'll never be any proof of it's existence.


If eyewitnesses to robberies or murders are correct in their identifications of the criminal X% of the time, then that percentage might be meaningful, but only because sometime in the past a study has been done that compares the eyewitness testimony to some other independent measure of truth.

Nothing of the sort is possible for evidence of bigfoot because that independent measure of truth does not yet exist for bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Another CLASSIC from a skeptic.
Skeptics always refer to "evidence" in terms of "proof".
This is what's being done here, yet again...by the use of the word correct.
Evidence does NOT need to be "correct"...."proven"..."verified" or "known" to have been created by whatever it's purported to be evidence of....in order for it to carry "weight", and thereby indicating a certain "degree of probability".

Example:
In any crime...a person is arrested based on one or more pieces of evidence...which have indicated some "degree of probability" that that person committed the crime.
The evidence carries some "weight" in pointing towards that particular person....even though that person may not have actually been the criminal.
Whether or not the evidence is correct is irrelevant. It's only indicating a chance, some probability, that that person is the criminal.
 
Diogenes said:
I particularly enjoyed it when she played the " Are you calling Native Americans liars ? " card... Then proceeded herself, to insinuate that one of her fellow NA's was indeed a liar ...
Click to expand...

Oh Greg dear, when did I do that?
 
Hairy Man wrote:
What I said specifically is the reason I wasn’t posting is because you are creeping me out. I haven’t posted since Feb. 23rd, and yet you have posted something about me everyday since then. I find that very disturbing.
Click to expand...
"Obnoxious" also works. :D
 
kitakaze to Lu said:
Didn't your seven miles in snow devolve to seven miles from town after being questioned? Evidently, hmm?
Click to expand...

It sure did fall apart. After being questioned about it, Lu was unable to provide any functional way to determine if the story was true. It was just something that somebody had said. I think she recognized that VulcanWay is new to the Bigfoot threads and he did say he didn't read this one. That allows Lu to treat him as if he never knew she got busted for passing on completely unsupportable information that is supposed to buttress the reality of Bigfoot. Lu is actually a form of a Bigfoot hoaxer. She laid a bunch of other crap on him as well. When one willfully represents worthless garbage as meaningful evidence for Bigfoot, that person engages in a kind of hoaxery.
 
kitakaze wrote:
I think I have already made it quite clear. How did I fail to answer your question?
Click to expand...

Well, this was my question...
Exactly how can a sighting report be "reliably" shown to be a real Bigfoot sighting?
Click to expand...
And your "answer"....
The weakness of sighting reports has many times been explained to you. Ask yourself this, how will a field biologist use sighting reports when trying to establish the presence of black bears in an area where they are not typically found?
Click to expand...

Where is the answer to the question? I don't see it.

Could you please give some criteria by which a Bigfoot sighting report can be considered "reliable"?
 
BFF seems to be groping for rock bottom. You could cut the tension and loss-of-direction with a plastic butter knife. They are eating each other alive. Numerous members recognize Lu's limp mantras, just like how it happens here on JREF. They slash at her to no avail whatsoever. That forum is a trainwreck in progress.
 
LAL said:
Which isn't always easy.
Click to expand...

It should be easier than you guys claim.

There've been a number of fecal analyses. One turned up some interesting parasites. Plenty of bacterial DNA showed up in another. Body cells of animals eaten show up and so does plant DNA. Now, try to sort all that out.
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. Convenient as always.

It's not known for certain they build sleeping nests.
Click to expand...

Of course it's not known for certain, since it's not even known that they exist.

VulcanWay said:
Do you see the frustration?
Click to expand...

Ever seen a forest floor? A seven mile long double trackway was followed 7 miles in snow, but was lost in forest. The PNW is particularly difficult because of the springy ground cover.
Click to expand...

Again, do you see the frustration?
 
We were told over and over that bigfoot had stepped right over a tall fence at Bossburg. We argued at length about it to ridiculous extremes.

Turns out bigfoot didn't step right over the fence at all, according to the tracks. Turns out bigfoot crossed the fence exactly the way a man would cross the fence.

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/images/articles/20060430225740332_3_original.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
Where is the answer to the question? I don't see it.

Could you please give some criteria by which a Bigfoot sighting report can be considered "reliable"?
Click to expand...
Let's see if we can't begin to untangle and unravel Sweaty's pathological obfuscation.

Let's start with the above. Question: 'Exactly how can a sighting report be 'reliably' shown to be a real bigfoot sighting?' First asked in post #2700. In my post, #2704, I told Sweaty that sightings are not not reliable. In specifically addressing his question he was supposed to take the example I provided him to get the point that no animal is identified in science by sightings alone. Only after an animal has been verified through the usual methods are sightings then used, and as is made clear in the example I gave, confirmation is key in using these sightings as data to make any conclusions. This point was further addressed in post #2717.

More importantly to the point of Sweaty's obfuscations, while he can get away with claiming not to get the point of my addressing his question he can not deny that he was given a very specific answer to this question in Correa's post #2709.

Next, everyone is well aware that throughout the length of this thread Sweaty has many times questioned the definition of reliable evidence to the extent that it's now part of his sig and many times been given a specific answer to the question. The most recent time he questioned the term was in post #2684.

In relation to the definition provided he asked the question 'how is 'not easily attributable' determined when it comes to analyzing a given piece of bigfoot evidence?' in post #2682. He was given a very clear answer in post #2693.

Finally, I draw attention to where Sweaty first asked 'what is the difference between reliable evidence and proof?' in post #2680. Though Ray posted a reply detailing the difference between evidence and proof Sweaty complained in post #2701 that his question had not been answered. Therefore, in post #2704 I altered Ray's response to give Sweaty a very specific answer. I note that he really should have been able to come to that answer himself if his intention wasn't obfuscation.

It is my contention that sightings form an integral part of Sweaty's bigfoot belief and by his own admissions in post #2701 he is relatively uninterested in informing himself on matters that would relate to reliable evidence. Also, that he engages in continual obfuscation in a vain attempt to somehow get skeptics to consider sightings as reliable evidence when it has been repeatedly explained to him why this can not happen.
 
kitakaze wrote:
Also, that he engages in continual obfuscation in a vain attempt to somehow get skeptics to consider sightings as reliable evidence when it has been repeatedly explained to him why this can not happen.
Click to expand...
So, the short answer is....Bigfoot sighting reports can not be "reliable"...in your opinion.

That's all...for now....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom