Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You're being pointed out as habitually ignoring questions/points/posts. .....one of the questions or points you've been ignoring...is... *cough* #2943 *cough*

This accusation against me is a *cough* *cough* *fart* *fart* total joke.

As for post #2943......

In direct response to one of Correa's posts...I wrote this:

I agree with you....that we can't know their motivations.
What I've been saying is simply that we don't need to know someone's true motivation behind filing a sighting report.
The report constitutes "evidence for Bigfoot's existence" if, after an investigation, there's no apparant motive such as money, need for attention, etc,....because there is then some reason to think they may indeed be telling the truth.

And Correa responded...in post #2943...

Well, I am sorry to say this, but you have not actually addressed my arguments directly.

1. You talked about witnesses being sincere. I said you can't really know if the witness is actually being sincere or not. I will be more condescendent and say most investigators and interviewers can not really probe a witness's sincerity. The best they can say is that he/she seemed sincere. You have not addressed this point.

Well, actually....I did directly address that point.
I agreed with Correa's point.....very plainly and directly.

I'll DIRECTLY address it again....

I agree with you....that we can't know their motivations.
What I've been saying is simply that we don't need to know someone's true motivation behind filing a sighting report.
The report constitutes "evidence for Bigfoot's existence" if, after an investigation, there's no apparant motive such as money, need for attention, etc,....because there is then some reason to think they may indeed be telling the truth.

That is NOT "ignoring" a point, or a question.

As a bonus....I'll directly address the other 2 points in Correa's post:

2. The second point is that even if the witness is sincere, even if he/she really believes they experienced an encounter with a bigfoot, this does not automatically mean he/she saw a real Bigfoot. It just means the person believes his/hers experience was real. There are other options such as false memories, misidentifications, etc. You have not addressed this point.

I agree completely.

3. You said the report of a long bigfoot encounter is more reliable than one that is merely a fleeting glimpse of a hairy creature. I said not necessarily, given the reasons exposed at (1), among other reasons exposed along the bigfoot threads. You have not addressed this point.

I believe I did address that in one of my posts already.

I think it's simple common sense that the longer someone watches an animal walking along...the less likely it'll be that he/she will misidentify that animal.
But I could be wrong.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:

You're being pointed out as habitually ignoring questions/points/posts. .....one of the questions or points you've been ignoring...is... *cough* #2943 *cough*

This accusation against me is a *cough* *cough* *fart* *fart* total joke.

First, what the heck is that hack job excuse for a quote? Is that middle part supposed to be from the same post?

Second, a total joke? How so? You're posting behaviour clearly bears out that point. Clear as day for anyone to see. By all means, go ahead and refute that. If you show I'm wrong, I'll apologize. You trying to sell 'I'm simply too busy' as an excuse why you've been ignoring things is a total joke and I've shown why. Again, is it necessary for me to point out everytime you've ignored a post or responded to one while omitting important questions or points in the last three pages? Sweaty, you keep shuckin' n' jivin', I'm ready for it every time.

 

[TjW]

<snippage by TjW>
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.

Welcome to the forum, mangler.

1.) On those occasions on which it has been unequivocally shown what created the footprints, it has turned out to be... not Bigfoot.

2.) On those occasions on which it has been unequivocally shown what was filmed, it has turned out to be... not Bigfoot.

3.) Many people believe in Santa Claus.

 

[kitakaze]

TjW....What....exactly....do you mean by 'unequivocally'?

I'm sorry, Sweaty, couldn't resist. So, anyway, what exactly is it about bigfoot sightings that make them strong evidence?

 

[mangler]

TjW,


Something brings presents at Christmas time. I think you missed my point I stated, something. I do not mean to imply that there is a creature out there. Get it? Or is there?


kitakaze,


I will bow to your superior intelligence and agree to undeniable fact (one post and the kangaroo court already dropped the hammer on me). I probably cannot answer your specific questions at this point but I will let you know how I feel in regards to the big picture.


Let me state that at this point in my career (the last couple years) I'm back-pedaling, I entertain the possibility of it's existence and that is all. I do not know if it's simply legend, or fact. I do know that I have had fun in my quest. I have met so many people that have, to say the least, entertained me beyond belief. Lately I have found myself drifting away from the biological and heading towards the social.


Why no proof? Well I guess I could just cave and say, Duh, because there aren't any.


In my opinion for there to be a living breathing creature/being, it would have to be extremely intelligent and possess reason. It would have to actively scout for human activity and avoid it at all cost, while it and/or the family gathered food and/or moved from one area to another. It would have to knowingly feed like known animals so as to leave no trace of an unknown. It would have to actively cover it's tracks leaving little or few discernible track-ways. It would have to dispose of it's dead in a manner that would leave no smell/trace, whatsoever. I do not believe that it would ever, under any circumstance throw frick-in rocks at people, that would be counter productive and for this thing to be real it can not be counter productive. My guess is that a large one would need a minimum of 8-10,000 calories a day unless it was leaning against a tree it's whole life. What kind of eating habits could this thing possibly have that allows it to be so elusive? Grizzly bears have been known to eat 250-300,000 berries in one sitting, put down 80-100 lbs of food a day, my point is a creature this size would need massive amounts of calorie intake on a daily basis and I would think that this alone would be enough to allow someone to find trace, and track it. I find this scenario very difficult to believe.


The bottom line for me is that if this thing is out there I do not think we are looking for an animal/ape. For this thing to be Giagnto, it's foraging habits alone would be traceable and it would leave sign more like a family unit/group of apes, apes are not hard to find.


I'll bow to your intelligence here, I am not all that studied in prehistoric man. Maybe an outcast group of say, Peking Man, a group that couldn't/wouldn't comprehend fire or tools? It migrated north where it stayed long enough to evolve into something that could survive the winters, became large and robust to fight off predators, crossed the bridge with everything else but actively looked for milder climate? A small group of modern humans could easily avoid contact if only a few people were actively looking for them (not a manhunt). The original Hunter/Gatherer? I also find this scenario very difficult to believe.



Maybe the folklore of Giganto simply made it around the world.


I also find (below) this line of reasoning a very valid argument.


Here is a quote from Lewes,

"The artist sees details where to other eyes there is a vague or confused mass; the naturalist sees an animal where the ordinary eye only sees a form."

and another from Sully,

"Actual reality becomes irrelevant as long as we have agreement among other humans."


I apologize for the rambling but I kind of have system overload going on here. I have just been reminded it's family time.


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Quote:
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?

NO...when did I say it's "automatically" proof?

It would be PROOF of Bigfoot after a DNA analysis. DUH.


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.

How would we know for sure...even then...that purported Bigfoot tracks which are similar in appearance to a known Bigfoot foot were not indeed faked??

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

Feel free to send Jimmy Chilcutt a short note telling him he's wrong in his assessment of the footprint evidence.....might as well clue him in, too!

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You're posting behaviour clearly bears out that point .... By all means, go ahead and refute that. If you show I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

I've stated before that I'll never refuse to answer a Bigfoot-related question.

Here's a challenge for you, kitakaze....go find a question which you "KNOW" I've been deliberately avoiding.....ask it again...or provide a link to it....and I'll answer it, as directly and completely as I possibly can.

The fact of the matter is, I've been way too busy to answer every question.....so I pick and choose some to answer.

But I will never refuse to answer a question that's relevant to Bigfoot evidence.

Skeptics here have outright refused to answer my questions.

Also, kitakaze, don't bother asking me any new questions related to Bigfoot evidence......you are a complete waste of my time.

The ONLY thing I'll have to say to you, or about you, from now on...is to make fun of your meaningless, obnoxious ranting............................he said with a SMILE.

 

[kitakaze]

I've stated before that I'll never refuse to answer a Bigfoot-related question.

Surprise, surprise. Baby D's all mixed up. Is it 'answer a question somebody wants answered' or only ones that are bigfoot related? And if it was bigfoot related why would it matter if it came from me? And what happens when someone else catches you with your pants down and it's not bigfoot related? I guess I'm wasting my time asking. We've seen how you respond when you're caught with your pants down and it is BF related. Post #3178 responding to Belz is just such a post from you and a fine illustration of how you're more interested in being contradictory than intelligent discussion.

Here's a challenge for you, kitakaze....go find a question which you "KNOW" I've been deliberately avoiding.....ask it again...or provide a link to it....and I'll answer it, as directly and completely as I possibly can.

What are you, on sleeping pills or something? I already have, many many times. I also made a list of times you ignored posts or responded to posts but did not address central points or questions since p.79 but obviously it's a waste for someone who does so many backflips as opposed to just being intellectually honest about admitting their inconsistencies, contradictions, and other errors.

The fact of the matter is, I've been way too busy to answer every question.....so I pick and choose some to answer.

Somebody asks you a question or makes an important point in a post and when you respond to that post you acknowledge it and address it. What's so tough about that? That's what we do here. You mistakenly attribute one qoute to another member and it's pointed out? Acknowledge it. You say that a member must have personal problems for taking the same tone with you that you consistently take with others such as RayG and then when you stick your foot in your mouth again and get called on it? Acknowledge it. Otherwise people begin to think that you're not interested in intelligent discussion. And when you broadly state that the vast majority of this board are laughable certainly you must be able to see how that would confirm any suspicions for many.

Skeptics here have outright refused to answer my questions.

What members are evading you?

Also, kitakaze, don't bother asking me any new questions related to Bigfoot evidence......you are a complete waste of my time.

The ONLY thing I'll have to say to you, or about you, from now on...is to make fun of your meaningless, obnoxious ranting............................he said with a SMILE.

So you're basically indicating that you're going to continue in the same fashion as you have been. Right, good to know.

 

[kitakaze]

TjW,


Something brings presents at Christmas time. I think you missed my point I stated, something. I do not mean to imply that there is a creature out there. Get it? Or is there?m

I think TjW was just stating the obvious as you were. That didn't ruffle your feathers did it? I hope not.

kitakaze,


I will bow to your superior intelligence and agree to undeniable fact (one post and the kangaroo court already dropped the hammer on me). I probably cannot answer your specific questions at this point but I will let you know how I feel in regards to the big picture.

Well now, I don't know about superior intelligence or the kangaroo court bit (can you imagine if you made your posts thus far at the BFF? One mention of paranormal BF and you'd need hipwaders for the $#!%storm) but I for one am very interested in and appreciative of the insights of someone who's been on the trail of BF for thirty years. Anyway, again I appreciate your candid reply.

Let me state that at this point in my career (the last couple years) I'm back-pedaling, I entertain the possibility of it's existence and that is all. I do not know if it's simply legend, or fact. I do know that I have had fun in my quest. I have met so many people that have, to say the least, entertained me beyond belief. Lately I have found myself drifting away from the biological and heading towards the social.


Why no proof? Well I guess I could just cave and say, Duh, because there aren't any.

Sounds great, I'm looking forward to hearing about it. It's good to see someone deep into bigfootery ackowledge the difficulties with the concept. If you would rather remain anonymous I completely understand but something about your posts are ringing a bell. I'm familiar with most of bigfoot personalities including some of the more obscure ones, might we have read about you and your search efforts elsewhere?

The rest of your post is very interesting and I can think of a few things that I'd comment on. Concerning the concealment of tracks, as I'm sure your're well aware some proponents speculate greatly about to what lengths sasquatches will go to do so, such as the Skookum cast. Elsewhere we can see photo's of trackways that would imply bigfoot being rather stupid about it when walking on roads and proponents will speculate about bigfoot marking it's territory with tracks. Just a typical example of proponents handling contradictory data in a way that is biased.

On the matter of rock throwing, have you read the BFRO's stunning West Virginia expedition report in which they detail a visual sighting and being intelligently herded together by sasquatches employing rock throwing?

Homo Erectus? I'd recommend this Homo vs Giganto discussion at the Search for Bigfoot forum for some entertaining speculations including debate on the validity of Mary Green/Janice Coy evidence.

Finally, your allusion to paranormal bigfoot is interesting. Personally, I think the paranormal crowd has a way better sales pitch when dealing with skeptics than F&B crowd. I'm thinking you may have met Beckjord... ....Oooooh crap....... I think I just realized what was ringing the bells. *kitakaze carefully and slowly backs away from the computer and goes for bonk protector*

ETA: I just noticed Cedrip has himself listed as a scientist on the wikipedia Beckjord disambiguation board.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I guess I'm wasting my time asking.

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Here's a challenge for you, kitakaze....go find a question which you "KNOW" I've been deliberately avoiding.....ask it again...or provide a link to it....and I'll answer it, as directly and completely as I possibly can.

kitakaze may not be up to the challenge....but I'll happily extend it to all the skeptics here.

Ask me ANY question you like, Bigfoot related, preferably the toughest ones first...the ones that I'm "clearly" dodging...and I'll answer them.

 

[SweatyYeti]

WELCOME one and all to another exciting episode of "Kitty Goes Nuts"....

The heartbreaking tale of a well-meaning, obnoxious guy who joined a discussion forum...and suddenly, without warning...while in the heat of discussion......simply went NUTS.

Take it away, kitty!.......

"Oh oh, look at me! I'm a semantic prancer! I'm prancing around like a magical pixie horse. Oh oh, there I go. La la la, weeee!"

Sweaty, do have any idea how silly you're making yourself look?

Now that's pathetic. Sweaty is actually trying to pretend

You know, Sweaty, that BS wouldn't look like a complete joke if

You're so turned around here, you don't even know it.

Sweaty, I know your BS too well. Aaaaand now I get to call you on it.

Sweaty, your dishonesty and transparent quote manipulation isn't fooling anyone.

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?

I suggest you give some serious thought to exactly what the hell your point is and what you think you are debating.
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.

Hey, Sweat, what exactly are you discussing 'cuz some of us ain't so sure?

See, the problem is Sweaty's not interested in things that might lead to some reliable evidence

Semantics seems to be some kind of irresistable pathological thing with you, doesn't it, Sweaty?

What a surprise, Sweaty. You just keep duckin' and weavin' and who knows, you may actually get good if you keep at it.

Careful you don't excite Asparagus Boy.

Here kitty discusses a bad habit of mine:

You're the one doing all the squirming.

Squirm, Sweaty, squirm.

Sweaty, no matter how much you squeal and squirm sightings are not going to become reliable evidence.

Sorry, Kevin, no squirming here.

Try to quit the squirming and manipulation

You can squirm yourself senseless but it's nothing but an excercise in futility

Of course, he may want to squirm up a much anticipated explanation for that

It's truly hilarious how many times you've tried to squirm with this.

Sorry, Kev's feeling a bit squirmy today.

Oh, another thing, Sweaty. Do you plan on squirming quite a bit more with this?:

kitty notices a pattern of behavior:

Typical Sweaty talking out his butt about things he doesn't understand

Belz, this is one of Sweaty's most classic typical behaviours.

Typical Sweaty biting off only what he thinks he can chew and ignoring the rest.

Your typical, predictable, boring pattern of lame behaviour

Since you typically seem to not be getting the point...

I'm having a hard time believing you genuinely don't get the point and aren't playing your typical games.

Maybe while you're....talking to Santa and engaging in....your typical semantic masturbation

It doesn't take Kevin long to make his predictable plays for semantic quibbling

kitty becomes fascinated with my state of mental development:

Being an adolescent makes it hard, I'm sure.

This is an example of the kind of little tells in Sweety's posts that make me fairly certain we are not speaking with an adult.

I didn't ask for his age, just if he is an adolescent. That seems to be the case.

Is Sweaty an adolescent?

I've seriously started going on the assumption that he's an adolescent.

are you aware whether or not he's an adolescent?

...I must again ask, how old are you, Kevin?

Oh and one more thing- how old are you Kevin, seriously?

kitty smells a troll:

Sweaty, you are a pathetic troll.

I'm having trouble being interested in your latest round of trolling.

Still trolling, hey?

You, like Sweaty, are a complete and totally pathetic troll.

kitty discovers I've been obfuscating:

I think I'll translate 'elaborate' as 'obfuscate'.

Let's see if we can't begin to untangle and unravel Sweaty's pathological obfuscation.

Again you obfuscate and try and twist what is said to you. Drop the BS, Sweaty.

also the numbers of times he obfuscates, has a semantic fit, and squirms with the concept of evidence in general,

And in conclusion...this golden nugget...

"Sweaty believes he has evidence that I have hostility problems".

Oh...wait a second....there's ONE more thing kitty would like to say before we conclude this episode of "Kitty Goes Nuts".....

"Sweaty, I can only offer my sincere testimony that I have a wonderfully interesting, fulfilling, and well-balanced life devoid of anything in the way of anger/hostility problems or major personal problems ......
...and...in addition...let me add...
....."I will readily admit to having insulted you, been hostile to you, and accused you of various things".

Deleted Scenes:

"No worries, Belz, I'm cool as a cucumber."

"I told you not to mess around with quotes." (who's messing around, kitty?!! )

"You've....consistently shown a lack of interest in intelligent discussion with skeptics here."

(Well...there's absolutely no reason to discuss anything with krazy kitty...or is that kittykrazy?)

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze already has done the things I ask for in my challenge many many times....now I'll happily ignore that and extend an invitation to all the other skeptics here.

Ask me ANY question you like, Bigfoot related, preferably the toughest ones first...the ones that I'm "clearly" dodging...and I'll answer them if I can do so in a way that looks good for me.

There, I fixed your statement for you. So people can't ask you things like 'why did you ignore #2943 references so many times and not just say that you think you've already addressed it far sooner?' or 'why did you ignore repeated references to your contradiction shown in #1480?'

OK, how about #3230? 'Verifiable' has been explained to you and the difference with proof. Also, do you think Belz is amiss in his post #3216?

 

[Steve H]

I'm still waiting for irrefutable evidence that Bigfoot exists SweatyYeti. I've asked you before, never got an answer. I'll ask again: Where is it?







heh .. anyone else?

Didn't think so

 

[kitakaze]

Take it away, kitty!.......

*kitakaze adjusts height of microphone and gives it a tap* Hey, hey, thanks Sweat! Evening, hope everybody's feeling alright. Wow, would you have a look at that. Hey, Sweat. How come no links for context? There was a point, right? Man, that must have taken a while. How do you even begin to answer that? Oh, wait. I know:

#3146.

 

[LTC8K6]

Feel free to send Jimmy Chilcutt a short note telling him he's wrong in his assessment of the footprint evidence.....might as well clue him in, too!

I have been saying Chilcutt is both wrong and unqualified for a long time now, even before Tube figured out what Chilcutt was calling dermal ridges, I was already of the opinion that they were not dermal ridges and I was not quiet about it.

I'm not sure he cares and I am certain footers don't care either. He is someone they can use and they don't want to lose him. Just like Meldrum, Krantz. etc.

Anyone with a degree or soem sort of tangential experience that will say what they want to hear is precious to footery, even when what they say makes absolutely no sense.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Steve H wrote:

I'm still waiting for irrefutable evidence that Bigfoot exists SweatyYeti. I've asked you before, never got an answer. I'll ask again: Where is it?

If, by "irrefutable evidence" you mean "irrefutable proof"....we don't have any at the moment, that I know of.
If you mean something different...feel free to explain.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Also, do you think Belz is amiss in his post #3216?

That's a new question, from you....it doesn't get answered.

As for belz's post #3230...I responded to it in post #3231.

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

I have been saying Chilcutt is both wrong and unqualified for a long time now, even before Tube figured out what Chilcutt was calling dermal ridges, I was already of the opinion that they were not dermal ridges and I was not quiet about it.

I'm not sure he cares

I'm not sure that tube's experiments have proven ALL of the purported dermal ridges to be casting artifacts...even though some may be.

Jimmy has seen tube's website....and it hasn't changed his assessment of the footprint evidence.

Also, Jimmy's analysis of the footprints consists of more than just dermal ridge analysis.

 

[Belz...]

belz wrote:

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?

Noted.

 

[Belz...]

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

Well, that explains your confusion. If you think that would be proof, then you don't know what "proof" means. And I assume it's the same with the words "evidence", "verifiable" and "reliable".

I think it's simple common sense that the longer someone watches an animal walking along...the less likely it'll be that he/she will misidentify that animal.

Well, that shouldn't be a problem with bigfoot's total lack of watching.