Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[SweatyYeti]

RayG wrote:

How about your list of reliable evidence? You do have a list of reliable evidence, right?

I need a more precise and complete definition of what constitutes "reliable" with respect to evidence...before I can make up a list of such evidence.

I have to go back and find kitakaze's "explanation" again....and then I'll elaborate on what I mean.

BTW.....why am I being asked to come up with a list of "reliable" evidence, anyway?

 

[LTC8K6]

What do you mean by "scientific" evidence?

Just what I said.

Let's make this simple.

Why don't you post the evidence that you think sceptics should accept?

Evidence that you think should crack the "closing minds" back open.

 

[kitakaze]

I love that line, kitty.

It's soooo........pointless.

I'm glad you liked it even if you didn't get it. That's okay, baby steps!

Actually...I think I was implying that there may be a case, or two, where perhaps I might have stated something which, though ambiguous...was also in a way clear enough to be interpreted both correctly by those who might understand it...and also incorrectly by most who may not quite understand all that it implied, stated, and infered by the use of proper English....in accordance with
a standard English dictionary, that is.

Do you know what I mean?

Umm... I'm not sure. If that was an admission of your propensity for ambiguous statements then yes, I do. Is this definition in accordance with a standard English dictionary?:

"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?:

Main Entry: plau·si·ble
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 shoud have stuck just with 'probable'. You know, since precise definitions are so important. OK... I'll go with Merriam-Webster on this one... and not you.

*annoying Ben Stiller voice* 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!

 

[Correa Neto]

Textbook...

http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

8 When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.

12 Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.

22 Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.

26 When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....

30 Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position.

31 Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact.
Never bother to do even basic research into the matter.

34 When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.

38 Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL in alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."

40 When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.

 

[Belz...]

So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

Translation....."My mind is closed."

That's incorrect, and if that's the kind of "analysis" that brought you to think that that bigfoot sighting was genuine, that ends the thread right there.

He didn't say "No evidence will ever convince me", he said "no evidence has ever convinced me, so far."

I love that line, kitty.

It's soooo........pointless.

So, when are we going to see the "calculations" of "probability" assigned to bigfoot tracks, Sweaty ? Or is that also a "tough" question you'd rather avoid ?

Once again...from Wikipedia...
" One approach is to reflect difference in evidential support by assigning probabilities to these probabilities (so-called metaprobabilities) in the following manner:...."

O.k....I'll go with Wikipedia on this one.....and not you.

You'll go with an article that says they assign probabilities to probabilities ?

 

[SweatyYeti]

LTC8K6 wrote:

Just what I said.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

I'm not sure. If that was an admission of your propensity for ambiguous statements...

It was an admission of my propensity for being at once both ambiguous and clear, though not always either...except for occasionally.

Do you know what I mean?

 

[kitakaze]

RayG wrote:

I need a more precise and complete definition of what constitutes "reliable" with respect to evidence...before I can make up a list of such evidence.

I have to go back and find kitakaze's "explanation" again....and then I'll elaborate on what I mean.

I can see how difficult and time consuming that would be. I think I'll translate 'elaborate' as 'obfuscate'. Man! You weren't kidding about an imperfect memory. One should think you'd remember something you've asked for and received so many times to the extent that you whine about it in your sig. That's OK, we know you tend to forget or ignore anything that doesn't support your ideas. This post made that very clear and dealt with all the other backflips you were doing at the time.

BTW.....why am I being asked to come up with a list of "reliable" evidence, anyway?

You originally said to me you'd at a later time provide some comments on reliable evidence. You avoided it for so long and it was remembered by some as concerning a list. When asked by others about said list such as Mad Hom or Ray G you responded in such a way that seemed to support the notion that a list was forthcoming. Eventually you did provide a list that seems to have been put together after an extended session with a patented Stuponitron helmet. Here it is. As for comments, you've been bee-boppin' and skattin' all over the place for a while now.

 

[SweatyYeti]

belz wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

SweatyYeti wrote:
Translation....."My mind is closed."

He didn't say "No evidence will ever convince me", he said "no evidence has ever convinced me, so far."

Wrong again, belz. Talk about a twisted translation! That's as far off as you can get!

Greg wasn't talking about "convincing" evidence....he used the phrase..."ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

There's a HUGE difference between evidence that's convincing (proof) and evidence that's meaningless.

How could you change the meaning of a statement so much, and say that it has the same meaning?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

SweatyYeti wrote:
I have to go back and find kitakaze's "explanation" again....and then I'll elaborate on what I mean.

I can see how difficult and time consuming that would be. I think I'll translate 'elaborate' as 'obfuscate'.

Your translation is wrong. Nothing new there.

I found the post...
I responded to your "explanation" of "reliable evidence" back in post #2834....

kitakaze wrote:

Quote:
Specifically, 'not easily attributable' is determined by taking into account what is known to occur with evidence claimed to have been caused by a real sasquatch. i.e., hoaxing and misidentification.

Your explanation of "how 'not easily attributable to Bigfoot' is determined" is way too vague, kitty.
It's determined by "taking into account what is known to occur"????

So, if ONE person hoaxed footprints....then thereafter...forevermore...ALL footprints found will be deemed HOAXED, right?
That's how it's determined whether possible Bigfoot footprints are legit or hoaxed...by simply taking the first "hoaxed" case and applying that explanation to every footprint found afterwards?

The concept needs a little more in-depth explanation....if it won't cause you to blow a fuse, that is.

I didn't see a response to that post from you.
Can you elaborate on how "easily attributable" is determined?

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You originally said to me you'd at a later time provide some comments on reliable evidence.

I will comment on "reliable" evidence.
Can you explain it?

You avoided it for so long and it was remembered by some as concerning a list.

Wrongly so. Gee, maybe "imperfect memory" is a condition that afflicts many people.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Backtracking a little....

kitakaze just wrote:

That's OK, we know you tend to forget or ignore anything that doesn't support your ideas. This post made that very clear...

That was post #2779.
In it you said...

In my post, #2704, I told Sweaty that sightings are not reliable. In specifically addressing his question he was supposed to take the example I provided him to get the point that no animal is identified in science by sightings alone. Only after an animal has been verified through the usual methods are sightings then used, and as is made clear in the example I gave, confirmation is key in using these sightings as data to make any conclusions.

From post #2704...Ray's definition....

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)

Ray's definition is the same as yours, kitakaze.
The key phrase in it is "not easily atrributable".
And the key word in that phrase is "easily". How do we decide whether a given piece of evidence can be "easily" attributed to a mundane explanation...like lying, hoaxing, or misidentification?

Is it just because "someone lied in the past"...or hoaxed a footprint in the past?

 

[SweatyYeti]

From Ray's definition, I just posted...

(ie. quality photo unsuspected of being fabricated)

How would any photo of a Bigfoot happen to be unsuspected of being fabricated?
Would it have rays of light coming off of it from all sides....
(with angels singing in the background?)

 

[Belz...]

Wrong again, belz. Talk about a twisted translation! That's as far off as you can get!

Greg wasn't talking about "convincing" evidence....he used the phrase..."ANY degree of likeliness, however small..."

There's a HUGE difference between evidence that's convincing (proof) and evidence that's meaningless.

Your reading comprehension skills are abysmal, Sweaty. You missed this part:

So far, I am not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small, that Bigfoot creatures exist....anywhere in the world."

 

[Belz...]

So, when are we going to see the "calculations" of "probability" assigned to bigfoot tracks, Sweaty ? Or is that also a "tough" question you'd rather avoid ?

Also, will you really go by an article that says they assign probabilities to probabilities ?

 

[kitakaze]

I didn't see a response to that post from you.
Can you elaborate on how "easily attributable" is determined?

Oh yes, I think you can be served. You're so turned around here, you don't even know it. 'One person hoaxes tracks so all others are deemed hoaxes?' Kid, step away from the Stuponitron. Where'd you get that? Let's break down how easily attributable works.

OK, following your tracks analogy- How many times have people been busted or admitted to hoaxing tracks? Was it just one person? No, it's happened tons of times from the U.K. right round to the N.J., got it? How many times has someone seen a known animal track or people tracks and shouted bigfoot? One time? Nope, many. Checked around, lately? Wanna be a dolt and question that? I hope you got an umbrella. Oh, but wait! Dermals! Oh, Sweet Honey Loaf let's talk about the dermals. People intentionally or unintentionally putting their own in the tracks? Oh, you betcha. Dessication who? Can't find two? But surely you can pull some DNA from some tracks somewhere, right? No dice, huh? Mmmmm... not looking so reliable, is it, Sweat? Forget me, use that computer of yours and cough up the dough to buy some copies of the best casts you can think of and march down to your nearest university and tell them you have some reliable evidence of bigfoot. If your lucky, you live in Idaho and Meldrum says 'that's nice, kid. Thanks for the tip'. Otherwise, please be prepared to here an explanation of how so far, tracks can be easily attributed to hoaxing and misidentification.

You've been served.

 

[kitakaze]

How would any photo of a Bigfoot happen to be unsuspected of being fabricated?
Would it have rays of light coming off of it from all sides....
(with angels singing in the background?)

Mmhmm. I think we can help you here, too. Field team for the Vancouver Island Marmot Conservation Project out working with one of the colonies suddenly come across a giant frickin' apeman scarfing one of their tagged marmots down and take some pictures. In disbelief, they return to base and have these pictures developed which, as expected, show a giant frickin' apeman going squirrely. These pictures quickly become circulated all over the world. Footer's rejoice but many are cautious. Meanwhile, to the researchers and all involved who should be who couldn't give a rat's a$$ what footers think, we can quickly establish that these quality images showing a sasquatch feeding on a marmot were not forged. Scientific establishment then proceeds to sit up and take serious note of this amazing reliable evidence and the ball gets rolling.

ETA: BTW, here is clear evidence that your reading comprehension skills are shot because you are attributing my definition to Ray, genius.

 

[kitakaze]

I will comment on "reliable" evidence.
Can you explain it?

Yes, I have.

Wrongly so.

Can you explain it?

Gee, maybe "imperfect memory" is a condition that afflicts many people.

Well, you know, when one is caught in the deadly glamma rays of a lab experiment gone horribly wrong and promptly transforms into a super-skeptic, one of the first side-effects is perfect memory. It's really a curse.

 

[William Parcher]

Meanwhile, to the researchers and all involved who should be who couldn't give a rat's a$$ what footers think, we can quickly establish that these quality images showing a sasquatch feeding on a marmot were not forged. Scientific establishment then proceeds to sit up and take serious note of this amazing reliable evidence and the ball gets rolling.

You'd get more than pictures from the marmot guys. Again, even if they never read a single BF forum or BF propaganda they would know that the apeman must be a real Bigfoot. They know damn well it's never been confirmed as real, and they've got a biggie right in front of them eating their study subject. Bigfoot won't eat the entire marmot, so whatever he drops (fur, bones, etc.) is going to be slobbered with his DNA. The field biologists won't make the mistake of not taking those chunks to their field station and then on to a lab. On that day, Bigfoot becomes a reality.

Why has something like this not already happened?

 

[kitakaze]

Here, from what I've learned, is why it's pointless to ask Sweaty about a list of evidence. In the end, what he's gonna give you is talk of sightings. See, Sweaty's not really interested in evidence. For him, it's about putting some window dressing on belief. Oh sure, sightings are BF evidence. Beckord's got a ton of evidence. Freeman did, too. Mary Green, oodles. Joyce said she saw a bigfoot in New York? Oh man, is that evidence.

See, the problem is Sweaty's not interested in things that might lead to some reliable evidence because they just don't have the same zing as a good old sighting. Footprints? Not for him. Fossil record? Bah! DNA analysis? Methusala what!? Dermals? Jimmy said so, case closed! Field studies? Boooring. Deep down, if you wanted to believe in bigfoot, would you look at any of that stuff? Oh no, that's where the doubt creeps in. Give Sweaty the PGF and the BFRO database and he's done, he's cruisin'.

No, Sweaty's all about the sightings because hey, can you prove Joyce didn't see a bigfoot? I don't think so. Man, you talk about sightings and that kid's in the game. Para- who ha? He'll come in running with an all caps ellipsis fit all over your butt and before you can hit 'quote' he's used some 'p' words more times than you can shake a stick at. I'm telling you this kid is the snake oil pitching, weak coffee alchemist supreme.

Little woo chat with Joyce? That was an analysis, man! This:

I'm working on drawing human-shaped head outlines inside the side profile outline of Patty's head.

We'll see what that shows.

That is gonna be a super analysister sledgehammer on your super-skeptics super-closed minds!

Unfortunately for Sweaty, to the people who it really matters to there is no reliable, no strong, no weighty evidence for bigfoot. Just a whooole lotta fluff, BF Lite.