Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
kitakaze wrote:
No, Sweaty's all about the sightings because hey, can you prove Joyce didn't see a bigfoot? I don't think so. Man, you talk about sightings and that kid's in the game. Para- who ha? He'll come in running with an all caps ellipsis fit all over your butt and before you can hit 'quote' he's used some 'p' words more times than you can shake a stick at. I'm telling you this kid is the snake oil pitching, weak coffee alchemist supreme.
Click to expand...
kitakaze....what exactly is the problem here?

This being a discussion board....is it o.k. with you if I continue debating the issue of "Bigfoot evidence"?
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
Field team for the Vancouver Island Marmot Conservation Project out working with one of the colonies suddenly come across a giant frickin' apeman scarfing one of their tagged marmots down and take some pictures.
Click to expand...
And those pictures would be above any suspicion....as far as a possible "guy-in-a-suit", or hoaxing??? Why would that be?
 
SweatyYeti said:
kitakaze....what exactly is the problem here?

This being a discussion board....is it o.k. with you if I continue debating the issue of "Bigfoot evidence"?
Click to expand...
Can you keep peddling weak coffee? Knock yourself out. Will it be pointed out as such? Of course.

A tip:
If you wanted to have a different kind of experience discussing BF related matters here it would probably be best for you to say something along the lines of 'I personally believe in the existence of bigfoot. I have nothing to offer in the way of reliable evidence but I find myself being credulous of many of the claimed sightings and the PGF. I can not support this view with anything beyond my own belief and recycled fallacious arguments but that's the way I feel.'

Otherwise, if you keep trying to tell skeptics they're out to lunch, expect to get served. We're always waiting for your 'decent evidence'.
 
SweatyYeti said:
And those pictures would be above any suspicion....as far as a possible "guy-in-a-suit", or hoaxing??? Why would that be?
Click to expand...
I think you know deep down that a picture won't come. After all, you are the one that suggests we accept a pan-continental bigfoot. I guess this would be the third time on this page your reading comprehension has taken a rather large hit:
Footer's rejoice but many are cautious. Meanwhile, to the researchers and all involved who should be who couldn't give a rat's a$$ what footers think, we can quickly establish that these quality images showing a sasquatch feeding on a marmot were not forged.
Click to expand...
 
Why a pic made by a wildlife biologist studying marmots would be reliable evidence?

Here's an answer, posted way before the question (Dear Randi, would you please give me the US$1M?):
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circunstances (for example, someone else manages to take more pics or footage) it could even be "proof".
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2299546&postcount=1074
Bolding added by me at the present post.

Reliable evidence... So rare for bigfoot... I dare say non-existing...

Someone please prove me wrong.
 
Correa Neto said:
Someone please prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't help you. So far, neither can Sweaty.

ETA: Again, Correa, you rock. I've been thinking about that post of yours you linked for a while but was too busy pulling other stuff. Enjoy the show while Sweaty teather balls with it.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... Textbook woo tactics...

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

1 Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).

4 Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.

6 If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

8 When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.
Click to expand...

Yawn...
 
Woo credo:

1 Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).

Me:

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.

Belz:

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.

Sweaty:

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.

Me right now:
Do you mean the specifics that actually were or just the ones you could verify?
 
Correa wrote:
Here's an answer, posted way before the question (Dear Randi, would you please give me the US$1M?):

Quote:
-High-quality stills or footage from a reliable source (biologist or wildlife photographer whose reputation would be ruined if caught involved somehow in a hoax). Depending on the circumstances (for example, someone else manages to take more pics or footage) it could even be "proof".
Click to expand...
And how would we know that the Biologist wasn't being hoaxed?

If the quality of the pictures wasn't good enough to be "proof positive"...could they still qualify as "reliable evidence"?
 
kitakaze wrote:
If you wanted to have a different kind of experience discussing BF related matters here it would probably be best for you to say something along the lines of 'I personally believe in the existence of bigfoot. I have nothing to offer in the way of reliable evidence but I find myself being credulous of many of the claimed sightings and the PGF. I can not support this view with anything beyond my own belief and recycled fallacious arguments but that's the way I feel.'
Click to expand...
Thanks for suggesting what I should say in my posts, kitakaze.....but I think I'll decide that on my own.

I asked you this question earlier......
Can you elaborate on how "easily attributable" is determined?
Click to expand...
You babbled on about people hoaxing footprints.....but that doesn't answer the question.
How....in principle....is "easily" attributable determined?

Is there any definition, or description of the procedure for determining what to attribute a piece of evidence to?
Is there a scientific method....or do we just use the "ranting-kitty" method?
 
belz wrote:
Also, will you really go by an article that says they assign probabilities to probabilities ?
Click to expand...
So....you don't like Wikipedia.....no problem.
Here's more on Probability theory from the book....

"Probability Theory: The Logic of Science "
by E.T. Jaynes

Chapter 1
PLAUSIBLE REASONING

The actual science of logic is conversant at present only with things either certain, impossible, or entirely doubtful, none of which (fortunately) we have to reason on (debate).
Therefore the true logic for this world is the calculus of Probabilities, which takes account of the magnitude (degree) of the probability which is, or ought to be, in a reasonable man's mind." |
James Clerk Maxwell (1850)
Click to expand...


Suppose some dark night a policeman walks down a street, apparently deserted; but suddenly he hears a burglar alarm, looks across the street, and sees a jewelry store with a broken window.
Then a gentleman wearing a mask comes crawling out through the broken window, carrying a bag which
turns out to be full of expensive jewelry. The policeman doesn't hesitate at all in deciding that this gentleman is dishonest.
But by what reasoning process does he arrive at this conclusion? Let us first take a leisurely look at the general nature of such problems.


Deductive and Plausible Reasoning....

A moment's thought makes it clear that our policeman's conclusion was not a logical deduction from the evidence; for there may have been a perfectly innocent explanation for everything. It might be, for example, that this gentleman was the owner of the jewelry store and he was coming home from a masquerade party, and didn't have the key with him.
But just as he walked by his store a passing truck threw a stone through the window; and he was only protecting his own property.
Now while the policeman's reasoning process was not logical deduction, we will grant that it had a certain degree of validity.
The evidence did not make the gentleman's dishonesty certain (proof), but it did make it extremely plausible.
This is an example of a kind of reasoning in which we have
all become more or less proficient, necessarily, long before studying mathematical theories.
We are hardly able to get through one waking hour without facing some situation (e.g. will it rain or won't it?) where we do not have enough information to permit deductive reasoning; but still we must decide immediately what to do.
But in spite of its familiarity, the formation of plausible conclusions is a very subtle process.
Although history records discussions of it extending over 24 centuries, probably nobody has ever produced an analysis of the process which anyone else finds completely satisfactory. But in this work we will be able to report some useful and encouraging new progress, in which conflicting intuitive judgments are replaced by definite theorems, and ad hoc procedures (such as kitty's ranting) are replaced by rules that are determined uniquely by some very elementary and nearly inescapable criteria of rationality.
All discussions of these questions start by giving examples of the contrast between deductive reasoning and plausible reasoning. As is generally credited to the Organon of Aristotle (4'th century
B. C.)y deductive reasoning (apodeixis) can be analyzed ultimately into the repeated application of
two strong syllogisms:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RayG wrote:
Not surprisingly, you seem to know very little about the scientific method.
Click to expand...
And you know even less, Ray. :)
All you can do is pitch in with an occasional insult.

Go back to sleep...you fool.
 
SweatyYeti wrote:
Wrong again, belz. Talk about a twisted translation! That's as far off as you can get!

Greg wasn't talking about "convincing" evidence....he used the phrase..."ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

There's a HUGE difference between evidence that's convincing (proof) and evidence that's meaningless.

How could you change the meaning of a statement so much, and say that it has the same meaning?
Click to expand...

To which belz responded:
Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal, Sweaty. You missed this part:

Originally Posted by Diogenes
So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."
Click to expand...

You failed to answer my question, belz.

The words "So far" have nothing to do with the difference in the meanings of "convincing evidence" and "any degree of likeliness, however small".

Or do they? If so....can you explain how?
 
Last edited:
This is part of a review of the book, by a reader, taken from Amazon's website:
If you deal at all with probability theory, statistics, data analysis, pattern recognition, automated diagnosis -- in short, any form of reasoning from inconclusive or uncertain information -- you need to read this book. It will give you new perspectives on these problems.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Evidence either stands up to scrutiny, or it doesn't.

Of course, if you don't present it, it doesn't even get up off the floor.

Proper evidence for the existence of bigfoot will easily withstand any scrutiny.

All this folderol and bafflegab and flip floppery about the bigfoot "evidence" doesn't change a darn thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom