Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LTC8K6]

It's a good thing I said the leopard had been identified and not discovered....

There is another thread here on the new leopard with more informative links.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77098

 

[William Parcher]

What you will find is that the largest tiger canines are longer than the largest CL canines.

 

[kitakaze]

What you will find is that the largest tiger canines are longer than the largest CL canines.

Any idea on how the averages compare? That'd save me some time trying to answer your question if you already knew the answer.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder if that cat's afraid of bears, too.

 

[kitakaze]

I wonder if it ever eats orang pendeks.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where's the ass print that verifies this?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You say you will never refuse to answer any questions and you simply haven't had time to do so. How convenient.

It's the truth.
How much do you know about my personal life?

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?

Your obnoxious attitude is astounding.

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'.

You can interpret my slow responses however you like...it's your make-believe world.

The fact of the matter is....I WILL answer any question that someone wants answered.

 

[Gbob]

I have to agree with those who question the leopard being discovered. Let's look at the evidence.

For one thing, this animal is located in only one small area. As we all know from studying Bigfoot, the cat could have a habitat range stretching from one end of the continent to another. Even then, it would be impossible to find anything more than a footprint.

Next, the so-called cat has too small a population to actually be discovered. You can, according to our resident experts, have a breeding population of 100,000 in Canada and you still wouldn't find physical evidence of a new species.

I also couldn't help but notice that the animal was captured by a photograph that was suspiciously un-blurry. Are we to believe that this animal just so happened to be spotted by some man with a magic camera that can take pictures that don't blur out their subject? Ludicrous! Cameras used in the woods can only take pictures of objects hundreds of yards away and with great distortion. Perhaps this camera was made out of the same magic material of the bullet that we're supposed to believe killed Kennedy. Bah!

No, gentleman, this is obviously a hoax and I suspect those vile scum at JREF are behind it. They obviously have no experience with true cryptozoology or they would have known how easy our experts would see through their fraud.

 

[kitakaze]

It's the truth.
How much do you know about my personal life?

Nothing more than you've already shared and I don't care to hear anymore. You're personal life is irrelevant. Your posting behaviour here refutes your 'I simply didn't have time' excuse. It's as clear as day and your excuse is a joke. You made a serious stinker by dropping that and thinking it would appear legitimate.

Your obnoxious attitude is astounding.

You can call my cornering your acrobatics obnoxious but I think I can safely speak for the majority of us when I call that a pretty sorry deflection attempt. Wanna make a personal problems assumption again and eat more foot?

You can interpret my slow responses however you like...it's your make-believe world.

Nice try. Who's talking about slowness now? It's all about content, Sweat.

The fact of the matter is....I WILL answer any question that someone wants answered.

Do you mean from now on in the same post where you respond to someone else's post containing the question? Because that's not been the pattern up to the present.

 

[Belz...]

The fact of the matter is....I WILL answer any question that someone wants answered.

Excellent. Maybe you just missed this post:

Well, maybe you should try to find out. Because all those sightings, all those tracks, all those bigfeet SHOULD have yielded at least ONE piece of verifiable evidence, so far.

Zilch.

Doesn't that bother you ? [It] would bother me.

Thanks.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Well, maybe you should try to find out. Because all those sightings, all those tracks, all those bigfeet SHOULD have yielded at least ONE piece of verifiable evidence, so far.

Zilch.

Doesn't that bother you ? [It] would bother me.

Thanks.

In order for me to answer that question....I have to know exactly what "verifiable" means, with respect to Bigfoot evidence.

How could a Bigfoot sighting report be "verified"....and still be below the level of "proof"?

Is there a difference between "verifiable evidence" and Proof?

 

[LTC8K6]

In order for me to answer that question....I have to know exactly what "verifiable" means, with respect to Bigfoot evidence.

Well, a hacked off sasquatch foot would be verifiable evidence.

You could have that verified as coming from a previously unknown large hairy bipedal hominid.

An ass print would not be verifiable, nor would a foot print, or a sighting.

Just a few examples.

After you have brought in the hacked off foot, then we can verify some tracks for you.

I'm sure you know what verifiable means with resepect to bigfoot, so why don't you quit playing word games?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Your posting behaviour here refutes your 'I simply didn't have time' excuse. It's as clear as day and your excuse is a joke.

How did you determine that I was lying?

You said you know "NOTHING more than you've already shared" about my personal life.....therefore you don't know how busy I've been lately...right?

Is that correct?

I expect an answer, kitakaze.....because the FACT of the matter is, is that you don't know how busy I've been lately....and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

In short...you are talking out of your hind end...AGAIN.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Well, a hacked off sasquatch foot would be verifiable evidence.

I'm sure you know what verifiable means with resepect to bigfoot, so why don't you quit playing word games?

A hacked-off Sas foot would be PROOF of Bigfoot's existence.

I just asked..."Is there a difference between verifiable evidence and proof?

And you're saying...."NO, there isn't"....because the example you just provided is proof of Bigfoot's existence.

YOU are playing the word games, LTC....not me.

If the skeptics here are asking for PROOF...then use the word "proof"....and stop playing your idiotic word games.

 

[LTC8K6]

A hacked-off Sas foot would be PROOF of Bigfoot's existence.

You mean it wouldn't have to be verified? It's automatically a sasquatch foot because it looks strange at first?

I don't think so.

It is verifiable until it's verified.

Once it's verified, it is then proof.

Once it's verified, then tracks become verifiable because we have a standard for comparison.

At the moment, tracks are unverifiable, while a foot is verifiable as we have seen with recent bear feet.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

Your posting behaviour here refutes your 'I simply didn't have time' excuse. It's as clear as day and your excuse is a joke.

How did you determine that I was lying?

You said you know "NOTHING more than you've already shared" about my personal life.....therefore you don't know how busy I've been lately...right?

Is that correct?

I expect an answer, kitakaze.....because the FACT of the matter is, is that you don't know how busy I've been lately....and therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

In short...you are talking out of your hind end...AGAIN.

Sweaty, do have any idea how silly you're making yourself look? First of all, you expect an answer? What an arrogant joke. By what measure can you expect anyone here to be accomodating to you? Your posting behaviour is actually reminding me of some of the Twoofer nuts in Conspiracy Theories. The resemblance is uncanny.

Do you truly not see the humour of you pursuing the 'I'm too busy' line? You're being pointed out as habitually ignoring questions/points/posts. You're doing it now. Did you even really give any thought to the last two posts of mine addressing you? Let me repeat this again as it seems you are ignoring the point: It has nothing to do with the frequency of your posts but rather the content. You may very well be very busy lately but that's not preventing you from continuing to make posts without addressing what's repeatedly been pointed out to you. You've been given all the answers you asked for. You've been given the links you asked for. You've acknowledged none of it. You've taken the time to post about how busy you are (yeah, Sweaty, the rest of us have real lives, too) and play your typical semantic games and still nothing. Would you like me to count how many times you've ignored questions and points for you in the last three pages alone? Or how about how many times you've responded to a post but didn't address an important question or point in that post? It's like pathological with you. And you actually have the gall to say people here are evading you. All I can say is 'wow'. Maybe you'd like to prove me wrong in my guess that your next post is not going to be addressing one of the questions or points you've been ignoring. *cough* #2943 *cough*

 

[kitakaze]

Is there a difference between "verifiable evidence" and Proof?

Sure, a photo is verifiable evidence but not proof. See below:

Man, Borneo's the spot. That's where this little guy was photographed. Some think it is a new species but there are those who think it might be a Hose's Palm Civet and others who argue for a Thomas' Flying Squirrel. Still no bigfoots stepping in front of gamecams, though. Everywhere and nowhere.

 

[kitakaze]

If the skeptics here are asking for PROOF...then use the word "proof"....and stop playing your idiotic word games.

Hey now, was that obnoxious and rude? Sweaty? Never!

 

[mangler]

First of all I would like to say that whenever I'm down all I need to do is come to this forum, reading these posts always makes me smile. So to all of you I give a big happy smile, THANK YOU!

This is my first post so I will keep it short. I have tried, apparently in vain, to avoid crawling into my monitor and posting here, my reasoning is that most of you are far wittier, far more intelligent, and well, simply like to argue/debate more than I, but this whole proof/degrees of evidence thing has sucked me in.

A bit about me. I'm one of those self-syled bigfoot hunters. I have flown under the bigfoot community radar for about 30 years in my personal quest for this ghost. I have met all the key players at least once and have been to far too many of their conferences. I have put in literally years of field time (west of the Continental Divide but mostly in Wa. State)) following up on reports that I have attained through my double agent network (that's right double agents). Now do not get me wrong I have a great deal of respect for most the major players, I just feel that they have tunnel vision.


I would like to state what I have found (in 30 years) to be undeniable proof in regards to bigfoot.

1.) Something is making large human like tracks.

2.) Something has been filmed on occasion that resembles a large hairy human.

3.) Many people believe that there is a large bipedal/apelike creature roaming the world.


Now if use what I see as a plausible evidence guide, like below, what do I have?


Convincing evidence

Evidence based on consistent associations with little or no evidence to the contrary. The available evidence is based on a substantial number of studies including prospective observational studies and where relevant, randomized controlled trials of sufficient size, duration and quality showing consistent effects.

Probable evidence

Evidence based on studies showing fairly consistent associations, but where there are perceived shortcomings in the available evidence or some evidence to the contrary, which precludes a more definite judgment.

Possible evidence

Evidence based mainly on findings from case-control and cross-sectional studies. Insufficient randomized controlled trials, observational studies or non-randomized controlled trials are available.

Insufficient evidence

Evidence based on findings of a few studies which are suggestive, but are insufficient to establish an association. Limited or no evidence is available from randomized controlled trials. More well designed research is required to support the tentative associations.


As I'm sure it's been stated before, a million cups of weak coffee does not make strong coffee, or even good coffee. What it does make is, CRAPPY COFFEE!


I have to climb back into the real world now, carry on.


m

 

[kitakaze]

Hi, mangler. As a former resolute proponent of bigfoot I would like to extend a hearty and warm welcome. I for one am thrilled when we have active bigfoot hunters join the discussion. I hope you find your quarry. BTW, I think when you say undeniable proof I think you meen to say undeniable fact.

Here's a few questions for you to entertain:

1. Why don't we have proof of bigfoot?

2. Why don't we have reliable evidence of bigfoot such as gamecam photos for this creature reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida?

3. Why hasn't ongoing Vancouver Island Marmot field studies turned up any of the above?

I hope you enjoy yourself here. Remember, most of us informed bigfoot skeptics here would be thrilled to be proven wrong about bigfoot and enjoy it as a modern legend very much.

As I'm sure it's been stated before, a million cups of weak coffee does not make strong coffee, or even good coffee. What it does make is, CRAPPY COFFEE!

Your forthrightness is appreciated.