Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Evidence either stands up to scrutiny, or it doesn't.

What exactly do you mean by "stand up"?

All this folderol and bafflegab and flip floppery about the bigfoot "evidence" doesn't change a darn thing.

And your post doesn't mean a darn thing if you can't explain and define the terms you're using.

 

[drapier]

LTC8K6 wrote:

What exactly do you mean by "stand up"?


And your post doesn't mean a darn thing if you can't explain and define the terms you're using.

And I'd like to know what he means by "evidence," "scrutiny," and "bafflegab." Especially bafflegab. It's just like LTC8K6 to confuse us with his scientific mumbo jumbo.

 

[Steve H]

I think you'll need to do better than nit about "definitions" and "meanings" here SweatyYeti. Speaking for myself, I'd require evidence that would do the same.. speak for itself - but so far it's only you and other believers that seem to be doing the talking. The problem with Bigfoot isn't just lack of irrefutable evidence either.. if it's existence was confirmed we'd still have the mystery as to why it took so damn long.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Edited to delete post...after drapier deleted a statement from his post.

 

[Steve H]

Edited to delete post...after drapier deleted a statement from his post.

I saw that too .. seems like he/she swings both ways. Anyway, show me Bigfoot and I'll call it a night.

 

[TjW]

Another verse to "Both Sides Now"

Reels of grainy Ektachrome
And reading Krantz's latest tome
"I think I hear him! Let's go home."
I've looked at Squatch that way.

But years and years of nothing there
Of hoaxed footprints and buf'lo hair
Makes me wonder if I care
If Squatch ever had his day.

I've looked at Squatch from both sides now
Belief and doubt, and still, somehow
It's Bigfoot legends I recall.
I really don't know Squatch, at all.

 

[LTC8K6]

What exactly do you mean by "stand up"?

Survive the process of critical examination.

Sasquatch dermal ridges have not stood up in my opinion, for example.

Meldrum's mid tarsal break has not stood up either, in my opinion.

Why do I think these have not stood up?

Alternate explanations have been put forward and demonstrated, eliminating the need for the unlikely conclusion that a new giant bipedal primate is the cause.

 

[drapier]

I saw that too .. seems like he/she swings both ways. Anyway, show me Bigfoot and I'll call it a night.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

 

[autumn1971]

An aside here;
I admit that I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has been covered.
Mention has been made of the skunk ape of the Everglades, and Kitikaze has provided a table of possible bigfoot population by state, indicating that Florida is held by believers to harbor over one hundred bigfeet. Assuming that the territory of these Florida bigfeet is held to be the Everglades and surrounding areas, that makes it overlap very precisely the habitat of the Florida panther. At one point in the 1980's, the total population of Florida panthers was estimated to be (my numbers are not exact) around fifty adults.
My point?


They were found, tagged, tracked, found again, studied, and examined; all of this happened with a population smaller than that claimed of any bigfoot population in bigfoot habitat.
Unless you have spent time in the Everglades, please do not make the mistake of claiming that the Pacific Northwest is an "impenetrable wilderness" compared to what, on a map, looks like a relatively small area of swamp.

 

[Steve H]

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Try what? A semantical nit against SweatyYeti, then an edit erasing that and a similiar nit against LTC8K6?

What makes you think this trollish malarkey is something that has to be done by others before they can "knock" it?

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa wrote:

And how would we know that the Biologist wasn't being hoaxed?

mmmmmmmmm...

Maybe the biologist knows his trade enough. Maybe he/she would not be fooled by a man in a gorilla suit.

If the quality of the pictures wasn't good enough to be "proof positive"...could they still qualify as "reliable evidence"?

First of all, I suggest you to read what other posters write, follow the links presented, read their content and poder the issues before posting. The answer to your question is there. Here it is again to spare you the trouble of scrolling the page:

-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".

At http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1074 you will find the whole post.

On the other hand...
If you had reliable evidence to present, would you show us?

And aren't you forgetting to address something?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hey TjW......nice piece of writing there! Good job.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
What exactly do you mean by "stand up"?

Survive the process of critical examination.

So it's "survive" in place of "stand up". That clears things up very nicely.

How can we tell if sighting reports have "survived" after a critical examination?

 

[kitakaze]

I asked you this question earlier......

Can you elaborate on how "easily attributable" is determined?

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?

*sigh* Sweaty, I know your BS too well. Aaaaand now I get to call you on it. Didn't like the answer to your question? Thought it was an ad hoc procedure? Don't think it's applicable elsewhere? It's going to be very interesting to see you elaborate that point.

Try this on for size:
Since you're so fond of referring to Jaynes' Probability Theory as if it helps you in some way and you've been sure to think the point through, maybe you can humble us by employing Jaynes' Probability Theory to illustrate how by using some definite theorems and rules determined uniquely by some very elementary and nearly inescapable criteria of rationality you can support your position on bigfoot existence and evidence thereof.

Surely, because you have studied the theory in such detail you will have also been able to answer any questions on the consideration of evidence of such claims as the existence of bigfoot, electricity, dark matter, etc for yourself.

I, and I'm sure many others currently following this thread, greatly anticipate this confident display of how your credibility has not taken a long walk off a short pier for the umpteenth time. Otherwise, I suggest you give some serious thought to exactly what the hell your point is and what you think you are debating.

 

[RayG]

Sweaty, with apologies to Monty Python, you have no cheese.

Bigfoot Evidence by SweatyYeti

(Skeptic walks in the door)

Skeptic: Good Morning.

SweatyYeti: Good morning, Sir. Welcome to Sweaty's Bigfoot Shop!

Skeptic: Ah, thank you, my good man.

SweatyYeti: What can we do for you, Sir?

Skeptic: I want to see some evidence.

SweatyYeti: (lustily) Certainly, sir. What would you like?

Skeptic: Well, eh, how about a few footprints?

SweatyYeti: I'm, a-fraid we're fresh out of footprints, sir.

Skeptic: Oh, never mind, how are you on photos?

SweatyYeti: I'm afraid we never have those at the end of the week, sir, we'll get some fresh on Monday.

Skeptic: Tish tish. No matter. Well, four ounces of bigfoot blood, if you please.

SweatyYeti: Ah! It's beeeen on order, sir, for two weeks. Was expecting it this morning.

Skeptic: 'T's Not my lucky day, is it? Aah, vocalizations?

SweatyYeti: Sorry, sir.

Skeptic: Hairs?

SweatyYeti: Normally, sir, yes. Today we've misplaced them.

Skeptic: Ah. Reliable videos?

SweatyYeti: Sorry.

Skeptic: Fingerprints?

SweatyYeti: (pause) No.

Skeptic: Scat, perhaps?

SweatyYeti: Ah! We have scat, yessir.

Skeptic: (suprised) You do! Excellent.

SweatyYeti: Yessir. It's..ah,.....it's a bit runny...

Skeptic: Oh, I like it runny.

SweatyYeti: Well,.. It's very runny, actually, sir.

Skeptic: No matter. Fetch hither the sewage de la Grande Sasquatch! Mmmwah!

SweatyYeti: I...think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir.

Skeptic: I don't care how bloody runny it is. Hand it over with all speed.

SweatyYeti: Oooooooooohhh........! (pause)

Skeptic: What now?

SweatyYeti: The cat's eaten it.

Skeptic: (pause) Has he.

SweatyYeti: She, sir.

Skeptic: You...do *have* some evidence, don't you?

SweatyYeti: (brightly) Of course, sir. It's a Bigfoot Shop, sir. We've got--

Skeptic: No no... don't tell me. I'm keen to guess.

SweatyYeti: Fair enough.

Skeptic: Bigfoot nests?

SweatyYeti: Not *today*, sir, no.

Skeptic: (pause) Aah, how about some DNA results?

SweatyYeti: Well, we don't get much call for that around here, sir.

Skeptic: Not much ca-- it's the single most supportive evidence in the world!

SweatyYeti: Not 'round here, sir.

Skeptic: (slight pause) and what IS the most supportive evidence 'round hyah?

SweatyYeti: Joyce, sir.

Skeptic: IS she.

SweatyYeti: Oh, yes, she's staggeringly popular in this manor, squire.

Skeptic: Is she?

SweatyYeti: She's our best evidence yet, sir!

Skeptic: I see. Uuh...Joyce, eh?

SweatyYeti: Right, sir.

Skeptic: All right. Okay. 'Is she here?' he asked, expecting the answer 'no'.

SweatyYeti: I'll have a look, sir........nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno.

Skeptic: It's not much of a bigfoot shop, is it?

SweatyYeti: Finest in the district!

Skeptic: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

SweatyYeti: Well, it's so clean, sir!

Skeptic: It's certainly uncontaminated by evidence....

SweatyYeti: (brightly) You haven't asked me about definitive proof, sir.

Skeptic: Would it be worth it?

SweatyYeti: Could be....

Skeptic: (slowly) Have you got any definitive proof?

SweatyYeti: No.

Skeptic: Figures. Predictable, really I suppose. It was an act of purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place. Tell me:

SweatyYeti: Yessir?

Skeptic: (deliberately) Have you in fact got any evidence here at all?

SweatyYeti: Yes, sir.

Skeptic: Really?

(pause)

SweatyYeti: No. Not really, sir.

Skeptic: You haven't.

SweatyYeti: Nosir. Not a scrap. we were deliberately wasting your time, sir.

Parallels between Monty Python and bigfootdom abound.

RayG

 

[kitakaze]

Ray, that was awesome. I just laughed myself silly.

 

[Belz...]

So....you don't like Wikipedia

Non sequitur.

You failed to answer my question, belz.

That's a big thing for you, isn't it ?

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

So, if I tell you that no evidence, SO FAR, have convinced me that there are visiting extra-terrestrials on Earth to "any degree of likeliness, however small", that means no evidence could convince me IN THE FUTURE ? How does THAT work, Sweaty ?

 

[Belz...]

So, when are we going to see the "calculations" of "probability" assigned to bigfoot tracks, Sweaty ? Or is that also a "tough" question you'd rather avoid ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
You failed to answer my question, belz.

That's a big thing for you, isn't it ?

It's a discussion board, belz. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Again...from my post last night.....

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?

Do they?