Sweaty, for some odd reason I think I'll just go ahead and answer those two questions again and your new one, to boot. Why? Because I enjoy making your shuck n' jive routine more difficult.
Q. 1) 'Again.....how is "easily" attributable determined....as opposed to "not easily"?'
A: As far as I'm concerned, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot. I define reliable evidence where bigfoot is concerned as that which is not easily attributable to some mundane cause such as hoaxing or misidentification. I think it is that evidence that doesn't fall apart under scientific scrutiny.
I would say that 'easily' attributable is determined by looking at what is known to occur and often does. You have a cast of an indentation in the ground that resembles a large human foot and you submit it as evidence of bigfoot. If I'm a scientist I'm going to require other supporting evidence because if all you have is that cast I'm not going to have any interest in looking at it because hoaxes and misidentifications are the norm for bigfootery claims. Do you have a nice clear gamecam photo that can be proven to not to have been forged or hoaxed? Well, hey now! That's not easily attributable to hoaxing and misidentification. Looks like you've got some reliable evidence for what people refer to as bigfoot/sasquatch. Now you've got my attention. Looks like there may be something to this, after all.
Now the question for you, Sweaty, is do you have any well considered answer that you can give other than 'I don't know' as to why there is no reliable evidence and there is no proof. If not, what makes you think the case for bigfoot is so strong? Because many people claim to have seen one? Many people claim to have seen Jesus, 'Grey' aliens, and chupacabra. Are you getting the point or are you just not interested?
Q. 2)'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?'
A: Well, IMO, it is the scientific method itself that determines the procedures for dealing with evidence and the results of it employment that dictate what you attribute that evidence to. Remember, as far as science is concerned, facts are not static.
If that answer is not satisfactory to you then I have already suggested you consult Jaynes' Probability Theory that you cited for one to your liking. If you aren't motivated to do so then all I can suggest is that you direct your bigfoot evidence questions here (which I have elsewhere suggested to you):
http://www.evidencescience.org/
Q. 3) 'WHEN did I whine about anything not being considered "reliable" evidence?'
A: In
this post I told you not to whine when sightings and tracks are not considered reliable evidence as they rightly thus far have not been. This is in reference to how throughout your time here you posit those things as constituting strong evidence of bigfoot. In the past you have used phrases such as 'decent evidence' or 'proper evidence'. Ever since I began using the term 'reliable evidence' you've been semantically nit-picking at it. To what purpose? No matter how much you squirm and twist none of the evidence of bigfoot thus far has withstood scientific scrutiny and none of it thus far holds any interest for science in general. You have such a problem with the term 'reliable evidence' that you embarassingly mock it in your signature. I personally have no desire to count how many times you've asked for a definition, been given it, 'forgot', and asked again. I am not saying that it is your habit to complain and say it's unfair that science has not accepted BF evidence. The point is that I'm bringing attention to the fact that you won't simply just be up front acknowledge the nature of bigfoot evidence submitted thus far and continue to try and obfuscate in a way that tries to create the impression that you are correct and the evidence for bigfoot is indeed strong.
Now, you've made it clear that any kind of Q&A with you results in you ignoring the questions and points that are difficult for you and catch you with your pants down and simply picking up whatever allows you to continue obfuscating and appear to be on a firm footing in terms of your support of bigfoot. Even so, I have answered your questions.
You say you will never refuse to answer any questions and you simply haven't had time to do so. How convenient. This is one of the most astounding lines of BS you've ever tried to pass off here. How stupid do you think we are? Right, I guess when you go on and on posting after receiving over and over reminders of what you have 'forgotten'/are ignoring we are supposed to interpret it as 'simply haven't had the time to find a way to answer that looks good for me but will get to it someday'. Yeah riiight, Sweaty.
Well, enjoy your new forum and the 'what's wrong with Mary Green evidence?' discussions. You've already been booted out of the main footer rumpus room and thoroughly and consistently shown a lack of interest in intelligent discussion with skeptics here so good luck.
