Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[kitakaze]

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

As I've detailed elsewhere the only 'evidence' that Sweaty's interested in is not the kind that stands up to scientific scrutiny but rather the kind that evades it all together.

And aren't you forgetting to address something?

Hmmm, yes. I wonder what that could be. The words 'totally' and 'schooled' are coming to mind. Hey, what's that behind you!? *poof*

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2395935#post2395935

Heeey, how'd that get there? Yup, I take back the benefit of the doubt I gave Sweaty. Considering how many times it's been brought up I'm definitely going with dodging. Now, do you think he'd actually make any serious attempt to study something that would mess with his precious sightings? Lotsa people claim to see little grey men, Jesus, and el chupacabra and that doesn't even phase him.

 

[kitakaze]

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

Weak coffee!! Right over there! Come get your piping hot weak cooofffeee! Hey, Sweat, what exactly are you discussing 'cuz some of us ain't so sure?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
"Plausible" meaning an explanation which has a significantly better than "one-in-a-million" chance of being the correct explanation for her report.

Or were you just winging it? Anyway, how about this one?:
Quote:
Main Entry: plausible
Pronunciation: \ˈplȯ-zə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin plausibilis worthy of applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere
Date: 1565
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler… , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>
— plau·si·ble·ness noun
— plau·si·bly \-blē\ adverb

Psst....I think you should have just stuck with "probable". You know, since precise definitions are so important. OK... I'll go with Merriam-Webster on this one... and not you.

I think you're out-to-lunch, kitakaze.

Again...an example of the use of the word "plausible" when discussing the analysis of evidence....

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.

 

[kitakaze]

Oh no, I didn't miss that, thanks. See any difference in your use and Jayne's? Anyway, we're all waiting to see you put that puppy to work.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

If the account does not match what is found during the exam, then the sighting has not survived, imo. Someone actually has to do the critical exam, though.

One way is to go back to the spot and see if the story makes sense.
You may find that it does, and you may find that you can't seem to match a few things up to the account.

What you may see and do varies a lot because the accounts and locations naturally vary a lot. By "you" I mean anyone who really wants to vet these sightings.

Let's say the witness says foot ran across a certain area. You go to the spot and the soil is such that there ought to be tracks, yet there aren't.

Let's say the witness took a photo of foot. You can go to the spot and take a photo from the same location. You may then learn that the photographer is mistaken by what you see in your duplicate photo. That is, you see what they likely thought was bigfoot standing there.

Maybe foot is said to have jumped across a wide ditch. You go there and you do indeed see tracks that appear to match what the witness says. However, the tracks on the landing side are actually no deeper than the leaping side and don't really match what you ought to see when a heavy biped lands after a long jump.

etc.

 

[kitakaze]

Right on, boys. kitakaze defintely has a problem.
This is simply not normal human behavior.

He doesn't seem to be able to carry on a civil discussion, on a discussion board.
And why is that...you ask? Who really cares?! I know I don't!

I'm content to let kitty's problem remain his problem.

Responses which almost always contain insults, accusations, and hostility, are definitely abnormal behavior for a DISCUSSION board...and indicate that there's a problem with the person responding in that manner.

Debating an issue on a discussion board requires LOTS of back-and-forth posts, lots of questions, and lots of in-depth explanations to get to some kind of an understanding between two opposing sides.
kitakaze has way too much going in the way of hostility, false accusations, and insults for all to be well inside his head.

NOW...where'd I leave my helmet......

And you know even less, Ray.
All you can do is pitch in with an occasional insult.

Go back to sleep...you fool.

So can this be my catch of the day contradiction? Is everything OK in your personal life, Sweaty? That was simply not normal human behaviour. I think you should seek help for your hostility problems.

mmmm... That just made my day. Thanks, Sweaty.

 

[kitakaze]

From the GCBRO via British Hominid Research I bring to you... *drumroll*

BIGFOOT IN HOLLAND!!:

http://www.gcbro.com/EURholland0001.html

That mother went from 1m 65cm to 7.5 feet!

You'd think they'd have the big wooden stomper market cornered.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

TjW, did you write that? It's brilliant. Definitely sig material. Very cool.

 

[Belz...]

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

Do they?

Do you have some sort of disability that makes you miss entire posts ?

He said "so far". That means he doesn't exclude the possibility of beign convinced in the future.

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

Hopefully not YOUR coffee...

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, it IS a big thing for you. Apparently your entire line of reasoning is to ask questions, ignore the answers (and other people's questions at the same time) and then claim they haven't been answered.

I guess that's your MO.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

He said "so far". That means he doesn't exclude the possibility of beign convinced in the future.

Oh, I'm sure it's possible that Greg can be convinced Bigfoot is real.

I can see it now.....

Bigfoot sneaks up from behind him......ROARS in his face....and while it's mouth is wide open, Greg sticks his head inside and yells...."HEY, Bob....you in there??!!

After a few moments without a reply....Greg says..."Well, gooooooolly...what'da know....they ARE real!

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Apparently your entire line of reasoning is to ask questions, ignore the answers (and other people's questions at the same time) and then claim they haven't been answered.

You haven't answered my very simple question, belz.

I'll go over it again later tonight.

You significantly changed the meaning of Greg's closed-minded statement with your translation of it.
It's hard to believe you can't understand the difference in the meanings of the words.

It's not an important issue at all....but it's worth my while pursuing, simply to see the extent to which a skeptic will go to to avoid admitting a mistake or being wrong about something.

 

[RayG]

Sweaty, you cheeseless Beckjordian troll*, you have continually demonstrated your unwillingness to actually debate this subject in a reasoned manner. Go ahead, ramble on all yah want, you are now invisible and your illogical rants are an eyesore no more.

Buh-bye.

RayG

* a person who enters an established community such as the JREF and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

 

[TjW]

TjW, did you write that? It's brilliant. Definitely sig material. Very cool.

Yes, I did. Thank you.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

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

LTC8K6 also wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
How can we tell if sighting reports have "survived" after a critical examination?

If the account does not match what is found during the exam, then the sighting has not survived, imo. Someone actually has to do the critical exam, though.

One way is to go back to the spot and see if the story makes sense.
You may find that it does, and you may find that you can't seem to match a few things up to the account.

What you may see and do varies a lot because the accounts and locations naturally vary a lot. By "you" I mean anyone who really wants to vet these sightings.

Let's say the witness says foot ran across a certain area. You go to the spot and the soil is such that there ought to be tracks, yet there aren't.

Let's say the witness took a photo of foot. You can go to the spot and take a photo from the same location. You may then learn that the photographer is mistaken by what you see in your duplicate photo. That is, you see what they likely thought was bigfoot standing there.

Maybe foot is said to have jumped across a wide ditch. You go there and you do indeed see tracks that appear to match what the witness says. However, the tracks on the landing side are actually no deeper than the leaping side and don't really match what you ought to see when a heavy biped lands after a long jump.

etc.

Those are certainly ways to discredit a sighting....although I don't quite get... "...you see what they likely thought was Bigfoot standing there."
You mean...like a tree stump...or an old Gasoline pump, out in the woods???

But what if a sighting "stands up" after it's investigated?

Does it carry ANY weight then?

Take Joyce's sighting, for example.

If, after a full-scale investigation....with dogs, cops, and a truckload of skeptics...maybe even a pizza delivery guy....it's discovered that Joyce's daughter also says she saw a Bigfoot...in daylight, at close range, unmistakeably human-looking...and they watched it walk away for a good 1-2 minutes....through an open cow pasture.

Would it have "stood up" to scrutiny?
Would it then carry some "weight" as evidence for Bigfoot's existence?
Would it be "proper evidence"?

 

[kitakaze]

Our young friend seems to take particular relish in accusing others with a straight face of some of the lamer things he does as though it's not beyond pitiful.

I have been avoiding your "catch-of-the-year"....my contradiction.

It's not an important issue at all....but it's worth my while pursuing, simply to see the extent to which a skeptic will go to to avoid admitting a mistake or being wrong about something.

 

[LTC8K6]

Those are certainly ways to discredit a sighting....although I don't quite get... "...you see what they likely thought was Bigfoot standing there."
You mean...like a tree stump...or an old Gasoline pump, out in the woods???

But what if a sighting "stands up" after it's investigated?

Does it carry ANY weight then?

Take Joyce's sighting, for example.

If, after a full-scale investigation....with dogs, cops, and a truckload of skeptics...maybe even a pizza delivery guy....it's discovered that Joyce's daughter also says she saw a Bigfoot...in daylight, at close range, unmistakeably human-looking...and they watched it walk away for a good 1-2 minutes....through an open cow pasture.

Would it have "stood up" to scrutiny?
Would it then carry some "weight" as evidence for Bigfoot's existence?
Would it be "proper evidence"?

Why do you see it only as discrediting the sighting? It is investigating the sighting. You find what you find and report it. You asked how to tell if a sighting stood up, so I gave you some examples of why sightings might not stand up.

You have to weed out bad data somehow or you end up with the BFRO's report page and Meldrum's morphology page, etc.

Do you agree that a sighting matched by what is found at the scene has more credibility than a sighting that does not match what is found at the scene? Do you see any difference there?

Do you agree that a sighting with "extras", such as tracks and a disturbed path through the woods that fits what is claimed, has more credibility than just a sighting alone?

Do tracks alone have more credibility than tracks with a witness as to what made them?

You mean...like a tree stump...or an old Gasoline pump, out in the woods???

It could be lots of things or nothing or bigfoot. The point is that by checking out the story and taking the picture, etc., you may solve the mystery. Sitting there and accepting the story solves nothing and may set you back later if an uncomfortable truth comes out.

If all you are left with is a claim that someone saw bigfoot, with no corroboration, then it's just a claim. How is it different from someone who saw an ETUFO with no corroboration?

If you want to persist in calling such claims evidence, that's fine with me.

It's very weak, though. Particularly when the claims are not checked, just accepted.

and they watched it walk away for a good 1-2 minutes....through an open cow pasture

.

Are there tracks in the cow pasture? Has the grass been flattened? Etc.

 

[kitakaze]

BTW, totally un-bigfoot related but how cool is wikipedia? Recent features on the KLF, Blackmoon, Shadow of the Colossus, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Sarah Michelle Geller annoys the crap outta me). Oh yeah, and who can forget crowd favourite, lead(II) nitrate!

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Why do you see it only as discrediting the sighting? It is investigating the sighting. You find what you find and report it. You asked how to tell if a sighting stood up, so I gave you some examples of why sightings might not stand up.

Your response was fine. I was just saying that you gave examples of problems found at the site...like missing footprints, improper footprints, and finding out there was a misidentification....things which discredit the sighting report.

I was asking...what if, after an investigation, the report holds up well....nothing is found which would discredit the report.
Does it then carry some weight, as evidence of Bigfoot's existence?

Do you agree that a sighting matched by what is found at the scene has more credibility than a sighting that does not match what is found at the scene? Do you see any difference there?

Absolutely it would have more credibility, and would therefore carry more weight.

Do you agree that a sighting with "extras", such as tracks and a disturbed path through the woods that fits what is claimed, has more credibility than just a sighting alone?

Yes.
In the case of the Patterson film...that's exactly what we have. A long trackway which continued on past the point where the filming stopped....and even took a longer path than necessary to go into the woods...crossing over the creekbed. Something which adds more credibility to what's seen on the film.

Do tracks alone have more credibility than tracks with a witness as to what made them?

No.

 

[SweatyYeti]

If all you are left with is a claim that someone saw bigfoot, with no corroboration, then it's just a claim. How is it different from someone who saw an ETUFO with no corroboration?

Well....we're talking about a Primate....versus a being from another planet.
You do the math.

In the case of Joyce's report....we have more than just one person's account of a sighting. She said her daughter saw it also....and her husband backed-up her story when I talked to him.
So that leaves us with either...multiple witnesses or multiple liars. Take your pick.

We also have a phone call by her to me, a total stranger, years after she filed the report....with absolutely no sign of a "NEED for attention"...since she took almost 2 weeks to call me back.

The bottom line is....does her report carry any weight...after some investigation?