Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'm personally rather fond of 'where's the reliable evidence?'.

Let's try some variations:

Where's the DNA that we should be finding associated with 'nests'?

I don't know. I haven't looked into the matter.
I don't know if the nests were even made by Bigfoot. Sorry I can't help you with that conundrum.

Where's the reliable evidence that one should expect to find for an animal reported from Alaska to Iowa to Florida?

"Reliable" evidence....I'm still trying to get a better grasp of what constitutes "reliable" when it comes to Bigfoot evidence.
When I do...I'll be better able to answer your question.

Where's the discernable affect that such a creature should be having in it's environment?

It's very easy to see....in some footprints.

Where's the reliable evidence that one would expect to find for a creature that seems to inhabit basically any areas with sufficient cover?

Reliable....Reliable...Reliable...Reliable...(Easter's coming)...Reliable....

Where's the fossil record of a bigfoot-type creature anywhere in NA?

I haven't studied the subject of fossils, so I can't answer the question.

Where's the increase in track finds that we should be seeing comensurate with the increase of active searching for this pan-continental beast?

That could be a good point....how much has the searching increased lately?

Where's the increase of quality images we should be seeing comensurate with the increase of active searching for this pan-continental beast?

That's a valid point for the skeptical side. Maybe the numbers of living Bigfoot creatures are dwindling as the number of cameras out there are increasing! Does that work?!

Where's the reliable evidence that should be forthcoming comensurate with this pan-continental beast's reduction of habitat?

Again...I need a clearer, more precise definition of what makes evidence "reliable".
I recently asked......what is the difference between "reliable evidence" and "proof"...but haven't gotten an answer yet.

 

[carcharodon]

Where did Kathy meet her husband? A bigfoot conference. I wonder if he claimed a sighting at the conference when meeting this shining star of bigfootery or after they exchanged their vows. Hmm. I wonder if anyone into bigfootery has ever been caught being dishonest about something? *crickets*

Back from holiday but I see nothing has changed much here, has it Mr Cry Baby Snitch?????

The master of hypocricy is still at it. I thought you didn't appove of 'gossip' kitakaze??? I thought you didn't like it when people gossiped and ridiculed other posters???????

By the way, I'm thinking of reporting you for your namecalling and agressive behaviour here lately LOL.

Naah, on second thoughts I won't bother. I have a life. Maybe you should try and get one too???? Now I know this forum is all you have in your life and you like to hold court here as if you are the great sage around these parts but please try and take this friendly piece of advice................try and practice what you preach.

Ok sunshine???

 

[carcharodon]

Try to relax kitakaze....I'll get to your questions later tonight....I promises.

You know what Sweaty? If ol' Kitakaze carries on with his recent behaviour he's liable to have a coronary...or at least pop a blood vessel in his head. He seems very highly strung of late.

Maybe he's got problems in his personal life? Might explain his ranting and raving of late.

 

[kitakaze]

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

In the case of a sighting report....how do you determine that it is, indeed...
"accurate"...or honest...or solid...or factual...or sound???

Those terms mean "proof", don't they?

What is the difference between "reliable evidence" and "proof"?

Since you refuse to get the point I will alter Ray's post to again explain it to you:

You keep confusing evidence with proof.

reliable evidence of sasquatch = information that is not easily attributable to a mundane answer that helps form the conclusion sasquatches do indeed exist(ie. quality photo unsuspected of being fabricated)

proof of sasquatch = factual information that verifies a conclusion (ie. actual sasquatch body)

Since you have some sort of 'reliable evidence' list, why don't you tell us?



BINGO! The skeptic will try to entertain and eliminate all other possible explanations/suspects before arriving at a conclusion, while the believer will cling to the notion that bigfoot was responsible no matter what.

RayG

Ask yourself this, Sweaty, why is the discovery of Homo floresiensis not proof of the existence of Ebu Gogo or Orang Pendek? Is it reliable evidence?

kitakaze wrote and Sweaty did not fully quote:

Sightings are the weakest evidence to try and support your theory that sasquatches exist. Misidentification, hoaxing, and faulty memory have beyond any shadow of a doubt been proven to occur with bigfoot sightings claims. In no case of a sighting claim has this been reliably shown not to be the case.

How could those be "reliably shown NOT to be the case"?

Or in other words...
Exactly how can a sighting report be "reliably" shown to be a real Bigfoot sighting?

The weakness of sighting reports has many times been explained to you. Ask yourself this, how will a field biologist use sighting reports when trying to establish the presence of black bears in an area where they are not typically found?

...still thinking? Here's some help:

Black Bear Status in Iowa. Don't forget to have a good long think about the chart on page two comparing reported sightings to confirmed sightings.

 

[kitakaze]

Try to relax kitakaze....I'll get to your questions later tonight....I promises.

I'm quite fine, thanks. You're the one doing all the squirming. But oh yay, Rimmer is here to help you!

Psst... He doesn't believe in bigfoot in New York, either.

 

[kitakaze]

Back from holiday but I see nothing has changed much here, has it Mr Cry Baby Snitch?????

Hi, Rimmer. Well we're still not at a lack of pathetic trolls but thanks for pitching in.

The master of hypocricy is still at it. I thought you didn't appove of 'gossip' kitakaze??? I thought you didn't like it when people gossiped and ridiculed other posters???????

You might want to try checking the posts between Hairy Man and before you continue talking out your butt. As far as having mastered hypocrisy, I'm not quite there yet:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2370197#post2370197
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2315230#post2315230

By the way, I'm thinking of reporting you for your namecalling and agressive behaviour here lately LOL.

Naah, on second thoughts I won't bother.

Let me help you with your second thoughts, Rimmer. You, like Sweaty, are a complete and totally pathetic troll. If any two ever fit the title of 'denialist' to a tee, it's you two. You make a fine pair, you'd fit in with these guys rather well. Asparagus Boy and The Spaz. You do remind me of Mr. Furious quite a bit.

I have a life. Maybe you should try and get one too???? Now I know this forum is all you have in your life and you like to hold court here as if you are the great sage around these parts but please try and take this friendly piece of advice................try and practice what you preach.

Ok sunshine???

Would you like to try and verify that bit of bum chatter? I have a life, thank you, and I'm quite sure to my own personal satisfaction that it's far more interesting than yours. Part of it includes spending time participating in discussion here. I wouldn't characterize my participation as holding court like a great sage as with even the most cursory examination one can see that there are other members far more eloquent and articulate than I. You, however,... not so much.

As for your advice, since it was neither friendly nor warranted, I think I'll pass. Back to your trolling.

 

[kitakaze]

Hey look, Sweaty! An Interesting Phone Call. Far better investigated than your Joyce-capade.

 

[Belz...]

As far as a sighting report of a "Cosmic Chicken" carrying some weight....it doesn't.

And a sighting report of Sasquatch is ?

Since there's obviously no such thing, it's not a good analogy to work with.

How would you know ? Millions of people, dare I say billions, believe in an anthropomorphic god. If it's "reasonable" to believe that, then why not a chickenomorphic god ? Why is there "obviously" no such thing ? There is no evidence against it, is there ?

But what if there were litterally thousands of sightings of the Great Brown Chicken ?

UFO's are a much better analogy.....because many people report seeing them, and they may indeed exist.

You're showing a bias for one analogy over the other. And now you're, apparently arbitrarily, assigning more probability to one. Why is that ?

 

[Correa Neto]

"How to judge the reliability of a sighting report?"

Hehehe, hard question... I think the answer is possibly you can't, unless it is "surrounded" by other types of evidence and these evidence are reliable, thus validating the report.

Back in my woo days, I was part of an UFOlogy group. We had our "guidelines" for evaluating reports, and they were not that different from the "rules" used by other UFO and bigfoot groups. The main points we relied on were our impressions of the witness sincerity, the presence or not of "holes" in the report and how detailed was the report. As anyone can see, there are plenty of opportunities for errors...

Lets check these criteria, but focusing on bigfoot sightings.

1) Witnesses' sincerity. It means nothing. Uri Geller looks "sincere", doesn't he? So does many conmen and politicians. Many people can pull a lie right in front of your face and seem to sincerely telling the truth. Quite often the "Mr. X has no reasons to lie" line is pulled by "investigators" to improve the report's credibillity. There's absolutely no way to probe an individual's motivations. Sure, in some cases, the motivations are obvious. To this aspect, one must add that the witness may be sincere. The person may really think he/she saw a bigfoot. He/she may not be telling a lie and still have not seen a real bigfoot. Mistakes, false memories, etc.

2) "Holes" in the report. Well, it does not takes too much to build a consistent sighting tale. "I was hiking at a trail at Haprylfuulz State park. When I neared Hoax creek, I heard a noise behind me, turned back and saw that huge figure some 10 m away from me. It was looking right at me. It was covered with dark brown to reddish hair, seemed quite muscular, stood on two feet, had hands like ours and the face seemed to be like that of a gorilla, but with bigger eyes and a flatter face. Maybe it had a nose, but I am not sure. I think it all took some 30 seconds or a minute. Before I recovered from the shock and managed to lift my camera, it was already gone. I was terrified and returned to the camp as fast as I could." See? Pretty much a standard report, ready to go to BFRO database as a class "A" sighting. Not to mention that since many sigtings are reported a long time after the supposed occurrence. This is induces an extra factor, since the "investigator" quite often attributes incoherencies to the time lapse. Even the emotional response to an enconter may be seen by "investigators" as a source for incoherencies.

3) Detail level. What would we consider more reliable? A detailed report from someone who claims to have observed a bigfoot for 20 minutes or the testimony of someone who claim to have catched the glimpse of a large hairy bipedal form crossing a road? Short encounters with wildlife as in the second case are more common, but also more prone to misidentifications. On the other hand, by one side, the 20 min-long encounter report is theoretically more detailed, and misidentification more unlikely. But the very lenght of the sighting points to a higher probability of the report not being true...

To all the above, we must add the fact that these "interviews" quite often suffer from another methodological problem, the influence of the interviewer. Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the "investigator" to provide the witness details and clues , in order to help him/her remember the details with more accuracy.

And at last but not least, multiple witnesses are not definitive evidence the sighting happened as it was told. Footprints also are not of great help.

 

[Belz...]

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

Woah, there, Kitakaze. No need to get that worked up.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
Or in other words...
Exactly how can a sighting report be "reliably" shown to be a real Bigfoot sighting?

The weakness of sighting reports has many times been explained to you. Ask yourself this, how will a field biologist use sighting reports when trying to establish the presence of black bears in an area where they are not typically found?

...still thinking? Here's some help:

Black Bear Status in Iowa. Don't forget to have a good long think about the chart on page two comparing reported sightings to confirmed sightings.

First...you failed to answer my question.

Secondly...there are 2 unconfirmed reported bear sightings on that Iowa map.
What is the significance of that?

Ask yourself this, how will a field biologist use sighting reports when trying to establish the presence of black bears in an area where they are not typically found?

I would think he would analyse the details of the report, including the character of the eyewitness, and make some determination as to how much weight the report should carry.

 

[SweatyYeti]

carcharodon wrote:

You know what Sweaty? If ol' Kitakaze carries on with his recent behaviour he's liable to have a coronary...or at least pop a blood vessel in his head. He seems very highly strung of late.

Maybe he's got problems in his personal life?

belz wrote:

Woah, there, Kitakaze. No need to get that worked up.

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.

 

[kitakaze]

Woah, there, Kitakaze. No need to get that worked up.

No worries, Belz, I'm cool as a cucumber. I've just dealt with those clowns enough to know the description was justified. If they really wanted to discuss evidence they would stop messing around but all they're interested in is trying to bait skeptics into silly semantic games or lame back and forth nattering unrelated to the topic. They both think that skeptics have no idea what they're talking about and that they're making a fine show of it. Even writing this is problematic as it just gives them more reason to ignore the weakness of their arguments and the points made to them.

Normally, I'd agree about the troll description but I'm just tired of guys like these being given an inch and running all over the place with it.

ETA: And of course, I spoke to soon. Sweaty, maybe you could enlighten me as to what my problem is, thanks.

 

[kitakaze]

So Sweaty, may I take a lack of response as confirmation that your post about the married couple was indeed concerning Hairy Man or are you going to direct us to a link showing otherwise?

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Quote:
Since there's obviously no such thing, it's not a good analogy to work with.

How would you know ? Millions of people, dare I say billions, believe in an anthropomorphic god. If it's "reasonable" to believe that, then why not a chickenomorphic god ? Why is there "obviously" no such thing ? There is no evidence against it, is there ?

But what if there were litterally thousands of sightings of the Great Brown Chicken ?

"if there were thousands of reported sightings of the "Great Brown Chicken"???????
Well...there are not thousands of reported GBC sightings.
Unfortunately, I don't have enough free-time available to me right now to get into debating "make-believe".
I'm sorry.

UFO sighting reports are real ...even if the UFO's themselves aren't.
I'd be happy to discuss them, as a reasonably close analogy to Bigfoot sighting reports.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

all they're interested in is trying to bait skeptics into silly semantic games

It's a discussion board, kitty. Deal with it.

Precise definitions of words and phrases are critical to any intelligent and thorough debate.
There's no reason to be reviled by it.

Have a good day.

 

[kitakaze]

First...you failed to answer my question.

Actually, I don't think I did. I think I have already made it quite clear. How did I fail to answer your question?

Secondly...there are 2 unconfirmed reported bear sightings on that Iowa map.
What is the significance of that?

I'm having a hard time believing you genuinely don't get the point and aren't playing your typical games. The siginificance should be appararent when comparing the number of confirmed sightings to reported sightings. How do you think they confirmed those sightings and also why do you think they weren't able to do so with the reported sightings? Also, what do you think is the status of bigfoot in Iowa?

I would think he would analyse the details of the report, including the character of the eyewitness, and make some determination as to how much weight the report should carry.

So what conclusion were they able to reach about the presence of black bears in Iowa?

BTW, Sweaty, if you or carcharodon/Lyndon think you are going to get me upset and blow a fuse, you can keep trying but it ain't gonna happen. The childish games won't work. Tell you what, though, don't act like a troll and I won't refer to you thusly.

 

[kitakaze]

It's a discussion board, kitty. Deal with it.

Precise definitions of words and phrases are critical to any intelligent and thorough debate.
There's no reason to be reviled by it.

Have a good day.

If you recognize those things as being important than why do you have such a tough time forming coherent questions and points?

You have a good day, too. Thanks for taking the time to address the questions asked of you.

 

[LTC8K6]

Precise definitions of words and phrases are critical to any intelligent and thorough debate.

When you get some precision concerning bigfoot, please let us know.

 

[Belz...]

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

Please don't make up stuff that I haven't said to make me agree with you. I just noted that Kita's response was a bit... emotional. I never claimed it wasn't normal human behaviour. Thank you.