Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze said:
Yeah, I admit trying to pursue the matter or out one such writer would be difficult. The best I can think of is to link a few of the reports I think were written by the same guy and see if the follow-ups bear any pattern that would support the idea. ...snip...
Click to expand...

Sometimes I have the same impression. These days, with Google Earth, even a person who has never been at a "bigfoot hotspot" could make a report with an amazing degree of accuracy.

Actually, if I run A BF-investigation organization who collected reports, I would promote tests, asking people to submit false reports to see if they are detected or not. Think of it as some sort of audit, or quality control.
 
RayG said:
I guess I'm trying to say that yes, there are those people who will purposely fabricate bigfoot stories, but I believe there are a great many who truly believe they have had a bigfoot experience/encounter. That doesn't mean they actually did, they just believe they did. ...

... One of the reasons I joined the BFF was the skepticism being leveled at bigfoot reports by some of its members. If you hang around there (BFF) for awhile, you'll see not everyone is a romantic 'believer' in bigfoot.
Click to expand...
I think as a skeptic or otherwise it would be very hard to spend any amount of time at the BFF and not be mindful of those who seem to sincerely claim a BF sighting. We've had a self-described skeptic do so here. That was Testudo:
Testudo said:
I don't know about the Loch Ness Monster or some of the other cryptozoological animals, but Bigfoot is real, real I say! I saw the damn thing with my own eyes!

Bigfoot roams the vast, largely uninhabited areas of the Pacific NW and Western Canada. Due to the huge size of the area in question, the extremely low human population, the dense foliage, and the semi-intelligent, shy desposition of the creature, it goes largely unseen.

Physical evidence is very hard to find because of the pitifully low ratio of people actively looking for evidence and the search area in question. And if they bury the dead you can forget about it, physical evidence will probably never be found. We might be lucky one day and find some hair samples, or maybe some bones due to shear luck in a dinosaur archeological dig, but I am not getting my hopes up.

Having said that, I still believe the vast majority of Bigfoot sightings are hoaxes or misidentifications (and no mine was not a misidentification. It was 20-30 yards away from me. I was sober and lucid, and it wasn't a bear, a tree, a bush, or anything else), especially in other parts of the world. The Bigfoot population is small and isolated.

Fire away folks. ;)
Click to expand...
 
belz wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Evidence only need indicate a chance...even just a small chance....or "degree of probability"....of something being true.
Click to expand...
Not really.
Click to expand...
Could you elaborate on that, belz?

What is required...what is the criteria that needs to be met...for something to be called "evidence"?
 
Hairy Man said:
Will do!

As a side note, yesterday I was with Craig Woolheater (from the TBRC) and other bigfooters plotting the take over of the world, and Craig stated that they are in the midsts of a very long term camera trap project in the National Park and National Forest in eastern Texas. This work is being done in complete cooperation with both agencies and with a grant from Baylor University. The cameras (around 60 high tech digital/infrared types with batteries that last 45 days and can take 500 pictures) are in very remote areas (so much so that it takes 3 days to service 8 camera in one location). They do nothing else (no call blasting, no baiting) in the area so to limit human influence. I suggested that they place cameras in areas they are also working with call blasting, etc. so that we can judge the results better. Pretty cool!
Click to expand...

Thank you!

And good luck with the cam traps project!

I am skeptical about bigfeet being real creatures, but this is one of those cases where I actually hope I am wrong.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Could you elaborate on that, belz?

What is required...what is the criteria that needs to be met...for something to be called "evidence"?
Click to expand...

I don't see how that's related to what I said. You seem to think that evidence means something that indicates a certain percentage of something beign true. I don't think it's that clear-cut.

Evidence indicates possibility, not probability, IMO.
 
belz wrote:
You seem to think that evidence means something that indicates a certain percentage of something beign true. I don't think it's that clear-cut.

Evidence indicates possibility, not probability, IMO.
Click to expand...
You're wrong, belz. And that's not just "my opinion".

Weak evidence indicates a small chance, or low odds, of a proposition being true.
Strong evidence indicates a very good chance, or high odds, that the proposition is true.

Those terms..."odds" and "chance"...mean pretty much the same thing as "probability".

The word "possibility" simply refers to a VERY large field of explanations....some of which are more likely...or more probable...than others, to be a correct explanation.

An excerpt from Wikipedia...on the explanation of "Probability":
Probability is the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case.
Probability theory is used extensively in areas such as statistics, mathematics, science, philosophy to draw conclusions about the likelihood of potential events and the underlying mechanics of complex systems.
Click to expand...


And this, under the heading 'Bayesian Probability'...
One criticism levelled at the Bayesian probability interpretation has been that a single probability assignment cannot convey how well grounded the belief is—i.e., how much evidence one has.
Consider the following situations:
  1. You have a box with white and black balls, but no knowledge as to the quantities
  2. You have a box from which you have drawn n balls, half black and the rest white
  3. You have a box and you know that there are the same number of white and black balls
The Bayesian probability of the next ball drawn being black is 0.5 in all three cases. Keynes called this the problem of the "weight of evidence". One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities to these probabilities (so-called metaprobabilities) in the following manner:

(Mathematical equations follow.)
Click to expand...

"Evidence" has quite a bit to do with "probabilities".

....unless you're a skeptic on Jref....of course. :D
 
Last edited:
RayG wrote:
Good luck convincing Sweaty of that.
Click to expand...
Hey Ray (the boy who couldn't answer simple questions :rolleyes: , and doesn't understand the meaning of simple words)....why don't you and belz send Wikipedia a little note telling them they're also wrong! :D
 
Last edited:
Still peddling weak coffee, I see. Typical Sweaty biting off only what he thinks he can chew and ignoring the rest. So what odds do you think we can assign to the proposition of sasquatch being a real species based on the purported evidence? What would bookies say? Do you think you have weak evidence or strong evidence? Maybe you'd like to share it with these guys.

Oh, and don't forget, you've been served.
 
SweatyYeti said:
You're wrong, belz. And that's not just "my opinion".

Weak evidence indicates a small chance, or low odds, of a proposition being true.
Strong evidence indicates a very good chance, or high odds, that the proposition is true.

Those terms..."odds" and "chance"...mean pretty much the same thing as "probability".
Click to expand...

That's why I used "possibility". You seem to imply that each piece of evidence carries with it a certain percentage. Add them up, and you get a total percentage. Roll the dice, and you'll now if it's true or not.

No, that's not how it works. Forget my "IMO" comment.
 
RayG said:
You aren't alone. I'm still waiting for LAL to pony up or apologize and she's done neither.

RayG
Click to expand...

Are you still on that? I may have found the location, but I haven't had time to check this board recently, let alone get back to a search. I had to take you off ignore to read the posts, of course, and and after about two posts I quit and went to do something useful.

I wish your memory were better; that would save me a lot of trouble.

Speaking of apologies, don't you think you owe a few?
 
belz wrote:
You seem to imply that each piece of evidence carries with it a certain percentage.
Click to expand...
No....I stated it...quite plainly.
And so does Wikipedia.......
One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities
Click to expand...
Did you notice that?

Roll the dice, and you'll know if it's true or not.

No, that's not how it works.
Click to expand...
You're right, belz....that's NOT how it works.

"Evidence" does not necessarily EQUAL "proof"...or ""knowing".

Here's a tough question for you, belz....WHO said it does?

You and Ray are both wrong. Try to refute that. :)
 
Not related to the discussion (or my personal opinion on the subject), I just found this quite amusing ~

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/invisible-bf/

Sample:
I have had close to 10 bigfoot stand within 10 feet of me. Guess what? They were all invisible but emitted a sensation of an electromagnetic cloud, as well as some other faint electronic snapping, and they were all peaceful. I have a picture of paranormal eyeshine from two likely wood gnomes at 5 feet. Their bodies are invisible. They are the same 4th dimensional people family as Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
 
What a surprise, Sweaty. You just keep duckin' and weavin' and who knows, you may actually get good if you keep at it. When your done doing that maybe you can address the questions and points you keep dodging. If not, LOOK OUT!!:duck: Here's some more:

(Actually, since you do it so much I'm thinking of requesting a fingers in ears, saying 'la la la, I can't hear you' emoticon.)
SweatyYeti said:
You're right, belz....that's NOT how it works.

"Evidence" does not necessarily EQUAL "proof"...or ""knowing".

Here's a tough question for you, belz....WHO said it does?
Click to expand...
You didn't, but apparently you couldn't figure out the difference reliable evidence and proof by yourself. Here it is. Now here's one that seems to be tough for you, are claimed BF sightings weak evidence or strong?
SweatyYeti said:
You and Ray are both wrong. Try to refute that. :)
Click to expand...
So were you. Try to refute that. :)

(I should really bookmark that thing considering how many times I've pulled it out and Sweaty hasn't refuted it.)
 
Last edited:
It is quite clear that Bigfoot will not harm anyone physically. Even when they throw rocks and sticks, they always miss. As far as I can tell, Bigfoot is one of the safest larger animals that anyone can have a close encounter with.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, but Bigfoot will never hurt me.
 
LAL said:
Are you still on that?
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm the only one pointing out your lack of evidence. I can dig up the links/quotes if you like.

You made an unsubstantiated claim and when called on it, can't provide the evidence for your assertion. It won't kill you to pony up with either the evidence for your claim, or an apology. Will it?

Whenever I present a claim I'm prepared to do two things:

a. provide supportive evidence; or
b. submit an apology and eat crow.

Not only were you not prepared to do either then, you apparently have no intention of doing either now. I view that as unethical.

I may have found the location, but I haven't had time to check this board recently, let alone get back to a search. I had to take you off ignore to read the posts, of course, and and after about two posts I quit and went to do something useful.
Click to expand...
In other words, you can't find any evidence to support your claim. Maybe if you cling to your assertion long enough people will just forget your unsubstantiated claim.

I wish your memory were better; that would save me a lot of trouble.
Click to expand...
You wish MY memory was better? You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Could it be that your memory isn't quite what you thought it was? I don't hide my identity behind aliases on the internet, and I only frequent two message forums that deal with bigfoot, so the evidence shouldn't be hard to find, if it exists. If it does exist, then produce it and I will eat the biggest plate of crow you ever laid eyes on.

Speaking of apologies, don't you think you owe a few?
Click to expand...
Unlike you, I apologize whenever I make erroneous statements or claims. Who do I owe an apology, and for what incorrect statement or claim? (leave your emotional baggage at the door before you answer) :cool:

RayG
 
Hairy Man said:
Yes, I am in complete agreement that there are scientists in the field M-F during the summer. We run botany, wildlife, fisheries, archaeology, and hydrology crews every summer (including camera and DNA traps for furbearers).
Click to expand...

Field biologists and botanists work in the winter as well. Everything science "knows" about winter ecology comes from scientists working directly in the field in winter. Snow is a near-perfect substrate to study animal presence, behavior and ecology because it is a kind of recording medium. Systematic surveys can be conducted using tracks in snow to reveal what is going on with non-hibernating animals. It must be an ideal situation for finding a Bigfoot, as opposed to looking in other seasons. Anyone could walk right past the path of a walking Bigfoot in summer, but not in snows. Are field scientists working in winter just plum unlucky when it comes to finding Bigfoot? Why don't trail cameras ever take a picture of Bigfoot?

And yes, some of these scientists have had sightings and/or other events.
Click to expand...

Can you make citations of this?

I would love for science to fund a year long study.
Click to expand...

Study of what?

But otherwise, it’s just me, my husband, two kids for bait, and one or two friends looking in nearly 800,000 acres+ on my forest alone (we are up against Yosemite National Park and two other national forests of another 800,000+ acres). Where do you begin?
Click to expand...

You begin anywhere you want. If you look at the sighting reports, Bigfoot is just about anywhere at any time. There is no need to go deep into the wilderness, because so many are seen in the vicinity of civilization. It happens mostly to "common folk" who aren't even expecting it. So given that fact, you might be greatly overthinking your search strategy.

Unlike archaeological sites that don’t move (without help), we can’t survey lands and call it “covered”. Animals move. And it’s tougher than you think. The U.S. Forest Service has spent millions of dollars trying to track down and identify Spotted Owls and their habitat under court and Congressional orders. What did that buy us? Large circles on maps that identify likely habitat and how to behave in those areas during certain times of years.
Click to expand...

But spotted owls are real animals. Finding out exactly where they live is secondary to the known fact of their existence. It is completely ridiculous to fund a "survey" of Bigfoot range or ecology before the animal is even known to be anything other than a myth.

As far as conservation goes, I realize that in most minds it means protection from poachers, etc., but I don’t think bigfoots are in danger of poaching.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot should be in great danger of poaching (if killing one would be defined as poaching). A dead Bigfoot should be worth an enormous amount of money to anyone who shoots it. It is inexplicable why this has not happened already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom