Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
SweatyYeti said:
Well....we're talking about a Primate....versus a being from another planet.
You do the math.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. 'You do the math'... now, what does that remind me of? Something about calculus and probabilities... degrees, I think. Some Jaynes person, I believe. Oh, well then, silly me. Here it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2410880#post2410880

I'm having what you might call a sneaking suspicion that Sweaty found that to be a bit more than he bargained for.
 
I had written.....
You babbled on about people hoaxing footprints.....but that doesn't answer the question.
How....in principle....is "easily" attributable determined?

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?
Click to expand...
Again.....how is "easily" attributable determined....as opposed to "not easily"?

kitakaze wrote:
*sigh* Sweaty, I know your BS too well. Aaaaand now I get to call you on it. Didn't like the answer to your question? Thought it was an ad hoc procedure? Don't think it's applicable elsewhere? It's going to be very interesting to see you elaborate that point.
Click to expand...
Analysing one piece of Bigfoot evidence by simply stating that all the other Bigfoot evidence is meaningless, and therefore this piece must be also is NOT a scientific method. That was my point.
Technically speaking, maybe your method qualifies as an "ad hoc" procedure...and maybe it doesn't. That's only a label....the important thing is, is that it's not true scientific analysis.

It's circular reasoning...as I explained before...and it's idiotic.

Try this on for size:
Since you're so fond of referring to Jaynes' Probability Theory as if it helps you in some way and you've been sure to think the point through, maybe you can humble us by employing Jaynes' Probability Theory to illustrate how by using some definite theorems and rules determined uniquely by some very elementary and nearly inescapable criteria of rationality you can support your position on bigfoot existence and evidence thereof.

Surely, because you have studied the theory in such detail you will have also been able to answer any questions on the consideration of evidence of such claims as the existence of bigfoot, electricity, dark matter, etc for yourself.

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

My point was the hell this...

The evidence did not make the gentleman's dishonesty certain (proof), but it did make it extremely plausible.
Click to expand...
Just showing that "evidence" relates to "probabilities"...as a general principle.

Bigfoot evidence indicates some degree of probability...or likelihood...that Bigfoot is a real creature....contrary to what Greg says about the strength of the evidence.
In his quote below, the phrase...."not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small,"...means a "0% likelihood" of the evidence being caused by an actual Bigfoot....which in turn equates to a 100% likelihood (absolute certainty) that every last bit of Bigfoot evidence...around the globe...and throughout the history of different cultures is due to a combo of lies, fantasy, and misidentifications.

How he determined that is beyond me.
 
I'll take that as a 'no, I haven't given thought to how I might use Jaynes' Probability Theory to support the case for bigfoot and I have no intention to do so'. That's OK, I knew you wouldn't step up to the plate but let's have a boo anyway.
SweatyYeti said:
Analysing one piece of Bigfoot evidence by simply stating that all the other Bigfoot evidence is meaningless, and therefore this piece must be also is NOT a scientific method. That was my point.
Click to expand...
You can squirm yourself senseless but it's nothing but an excercise in futility considering there's absolutely no evidence for bigfoot that was withstood critical scientific scrutiny. Spare yourself the repeat walk into the wall by asking me what I mean by one of the last four words that statement.

Got some big marks on the ground that you think bigfoot made? Right then, got any DNA, undeniable non-human dermatoglyphics, or something other in the way of corroborating evidence that could not have been hoaxed to go with them? Did those tracks lead you to a bigfoot? No and no, huh? It always seems to be the case doesn't it? Spare yourself a repeat walk into the wall with a PGF reference and don't whine when they're not considered as reliable evidence.

Gotta person who swears they saw bigfoot? Right then, got some quality photos of the encounter that haven't been hoaxed or forged? Got some corroborating evidence to go with that claim that couldn't have been hoaxed? No and no, huh? It always seems to be the case doesn't it? Spare yourself a repeat walk into the wall with a PGF reference or dithering about how hoaxing and forgery are ruled out and don't whine when they're not considered as reliable evidence.

OMG, LOOK! It's chupafrickincabra!? Sightings, photos, and bones! Oh my!

http://www.lostworldmuseum.com/
SweatyYeti said:
Technically speaking, maybe your method qualifies as an "ad hoc" procedure...and maybe it doesn't. That's only a label....the important thing is, is that it's not true scientific analysis.

It's circular reasoning...as I explained before...and it's idiotic.
Click to expand...
You said I employed an ad hoc procedure and now you say maybe it was/wasn't. Typical Sweaty talking out his butt about things he doesn't understand and then turtling when he get's busted. Got any bigfoot evidence that's withstood scrutiny? Oh, woops. I already went there.
Just showing that "evidence" relates to "probabilities"...as a general principle.

Bigfoot evidence indicates some degree of probability...or likelihood...that Bigfoot is a real creature....contrary to what Greg says about the strength of the evidence.
In his quote below, the phrase...."not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small,"...means a "0% likelihood" of the evidence being caused by an actual Bigfoot....which in turn equates to a 100% likelihood (absolute certainty) that every last bit of Bigfoot evidence...around the globe...and throughout the history of different cultures is due to a combo of lies, fantasy, and misidentifications.

How he determined that is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Enough with the flatulence, kid. You're so predictable, it's ridiculous. Why don't you quit the shuck n' jive, do the math, and actually submit the specific evidence you think supports bigfoot with an explanation of exactly what degree of probability you think it has. Otherwise, quit making a spectacle of yourself with the fluff kick. Oh yeah, and this:
SweatyYeti said:
Again.....how is "easily" attributable determined....as opposed to "not easily"?
Click to expand...
..and this:
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?
Click to expand...
If you don't like how it's been explained to you then whip out Jaynes' PT and figure things out for yourself.
 
kitakaze wrote:
You can squirm yourself senseless but it's nothing but an excercise in futility considering there's absolutely no evidence for bigfoot that was withstood critical scientific scrutiny. Spare yourself the repeat walk into the wall by asking me what I mean by one of the last four words that statement.

Got some big marks on the ground that you think bigfoot made? Right then, got any DNA, undeniable non-human dermatoglyphics, or something other in the way of corroborating evidence that could not have been hoaxed to go with them? Did those tracks lead you to a Bigfoot? No and no, huh? It always seems to be the case doesn't it? Spare yourself a repeat walk into the wall with a PGF reference and don't whine when they're not considered as reliable evidence.

Gotta person who swears they saw bigfoot? Right then, got some quality photos of the encounter that have not been hoaxed or forged? Got some corroborating evidence to go with that claim that could not have been hoaxed? No and no, huh? It always seems to be the case doesn't it? Spare yourself a repeat walk into the wall with a PGF reference or dithering about how hoaxing and forgery are ruled out and don't whine when they're not considered as reliable evidence.
Click to expand...

Great point, kitakaze......we DO NOT have proof of Bigfoot.

Three BIG CHEERS for kitakaze!!! There's NO fooling this guy!! :p

We can follow the tracks....and we don't find a Bigfoot standing there.
We look at the PG film....and we don't know for SURE that it's a real Bigfoot.....although it may well be.
We don't know for SURE when we interview a supposed eyewitness that he or she did in fact see a Bigfoot...although they may have.

The skeptics on this board are, in a word....laughable.

Their analysis of the evidence is the equivalent of a $20 robot that you buy at Radio Shack.
Press the button and Skeptozon says.....

"You don't have proof of Bigfoot"...."The evidence is no good."...."Ha Ha Ha...got Bigfoot?"...."There's no reliable evidence."....etc.

What a total joke their "analysis" is. Brain-dead babble.
Thank you kitakaze for providing a fresh example of it for us. :)

...don't whine when they're not considered as reliable evidence.
Click to expand...
When did I whine about anything not being considered "reliable" evidence?

I've been saying that the evidence carries some "weight"....it indicates some degree of probability, or likelihood, of Bigfoot's existence. And it does so even if Bigfoot doesn't exist.

How strong or weak the evidence is IS debatable....and that's one purpose for these discussion threads about Bigfoot.
It's NOT to simply declare that "we don't have proof"....everyone already knows that. It's not disputed...and therefore doesn't need debating.

The other extreme...Greg's quote below....to say that ALL the evidence carries absolutely NO weight whatsoever is just plain wrong...and shows a lack of understanding of what the word "evidence" actually means.

That's why the skeptic's mantra...."without proof...all the evidence is meaningless"....is simply laughable...and is itself meaningless.

The evidence for Bigfoot lies somewhere in-between proof and nothing.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Great point, kitakaze......we DO NOT have proof of Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that is for this creature that seems to be everywhere and nowhere?
SweatyYeti said:
The skeptics on this board are, in a word....laughable.

Their analysis of the evidence is the equivalent of a $20 robot that you buy at Radio Shack.
Press the button and Skeptozon says.....

"You don't have proof of Bigfoot"...."The evidence is no good."...."Ha Ha Ha...got Bigfoot?"...."There's no reliable evidence."....etc.

What a total joke their "analysis" is. Brain-dead babble.
Thank you kitakaze for providing a fresh example of it for us.
Click to expand...
Any interest in removing the troll farts and direct your complaints just to me? The vast majority of the members of this board do not participate in the BF threads. Most that do participate in them are finding you to be a waste of time.
SweatyYeti said:
When did I whine about anything not being considered "reliable" evidence?
Click to expand...
Your whining is about what should and should not be considered reliable evidence. You confuse the absence of reliable evidence with the absence of proof. Proceed to have an ellipsis fit with that. As for the rest of your deep thought I'm guessing this is just too tough for you:
Enough with the flatulence, kid. You're so predictable, it's ridiculous. Why don't you quit the shuck n' jive, do the math, and actually submit the specific evidence you think supports bigfoot with an explanation of exactly what degree of probability you think it has. Otherwise, quit making a spectacle of yourself with the fluff kick.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is....does her report carry any weight...after some investigation?
Click to expand...

To me, it carries little weight. Not zero, mind you.

In the case of the Patterson film...that's exactly what we have. A long trackway which continued on past the point where the filming stopped....and even took a longer path than necessary to go into the woods...crossing over the creekbed. Something which adds more credibility to what's seen on the film.
Click to expand...

I disagree, though. I'm not convinced that the tracks were made when the film was shot. I also doubt an animal would do anything but get to the woods in a hurry.
 
Again, where are the bigfeet? I keep hearing that they are all around us, but not a single scrap of bigfoot has been identified. For Heisenberg's sake, we have positive physical evidence of creatures that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. When the probabilty of a species being preserved in the fossil record is taken into account, we posses the remains of thousands of animals we should never have found. Many of these were found by accident.
To return to the Florida panther, this unbelievably elusive cat, thought to be confined by the Everglades wilderness, has been occasionally sighted as far away as Gainesville, in the northern part of the state(here's where the example morphs into metaphor). Sightings this far north are always met with scepticism, but they are met with an open mind. Many folks up here think it possible that panthers may have made it this far away from their parent populations, but none of them assert this as a certainty.
It happens that a dead panther was found beside a highway in north Florida recently, and those who assert that the panther may be more common than we all thought...assumed more likely possibilities first. The common assumption is that it was a privately owned panther that escaped.

But there was still a dead panther. It wasn't a guy in a panther suit. It wasn't a report of a panther that could not be confirmed. It was a dead panther. The most elusive animal in the entire peninsula, and the instant it existed where no one thought it should be, it left a great, big, greasy trace. A body. A corpse. Not a bigfoot, but a panther, which in this state is much rarer.
 
SweatyYeti said:
belz wrote:

Oh, I'm sure it's possible that Greg can be convinced Bigfoot is real.

I can see it now.....

Bigfoot sneaks up from behind him......ROARS in his face....and while it's mouth is wide open, Greg sticks his head inside and yells...."HEY, Bob....you in there??!! :confused:

After a few moments without a reply....Greg says..."Well, gooooooolly...what'da know....they ARE real! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good, good. So, I take it you admit that the words "so far" prove my point ?
 
SweatyYeti said:
Apparently your entire line of reasoning is to ask questions, ignore the answers (and other people's questions at the same time) and then claim they haven't been answered.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered my very simple question, belz.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. :rolleyes:

You significantly changed the meaning of Greg's closed-minded statement with your translation of it.
Click to expand...

I "changed the meaning" ? He said "SO FAR". What do you think THAT means, sweaty ?

It's hard to believe you can't understand the difference in the meanings of the words.
Click to expand...

It's hard to believe YOU can't understand what they do mean.

It's not an important issue at all....but it's worth my while pursuing, simply to see the extent to which a skeptic will go to to avoid admitting a mistake or being wrong about something.
Click to expand...

It's not MY mistake, if it is one. He said "so far". I don't see how you could miss that.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Just showing that "evidence" relates to "probabilities"...as a general principle.
Click to expand...

Ah, NOW we agree.

In his quote below, the phrase...."not aware of any evidence which indicates with any degree of likeliness, however small,"...means a "0% likelihood" of the evidence being caused by an actual Bigfoot....which in turn equates to a 100% likelihood (absolute certainty) that every last bit of Bigfoot

Here are the damn % again.
Click to expand...
How he determined that is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Why, yes. Yes it is.

We can follow the tracks....and we don't find a Bigfoot standing there.
Click to expand...

Logically, there should be a bigfoot at the end of SOME tracks...

We look at the PG film....and we don't know for SURE that it's a real Bigfoot.....although it may well be.
We don't know for SURE when we interview a supposed eyewitness that he or she did in fact see a Bigfoot...although they may have.
Click to expand...

Sounds remarkably like arguments from ignorance.

The skeptics on this board are, in a word....laughable.
Click to expand...

Well, that's it. I'm convinced !

Their analysis of the evidence is the equivalent of a $20 robot that you buy at Radio Shack.
Press the button and Skeptozon says.....

"You don't have proof of Bigfoot"...."The evidence is no good."...."Ha Ha Ha...got Bigfoot?"...."There's no reliable evidence."....etc.

What a total joke their "analysis" is. Brain-dead babble.
Click to expand...

You're right! Why go through all the trouble of asking for serious investigations while we could simply ACCEPT every claim out there until they're proven wrong ?

You heard me. Let's all believe in bigfoot, UFOs, homeopathy, Feng Shui or whatever, reflexology, astrology, faith healing, elves and ghosts. Why go through any trouble at all when all you need is to believe...
 
I had written:
When did I whine about anything not being considered "reliable" evidence?
Click to expand...
kitakaze responded:
Your whining is about what should and should not be considered reliable evidence.
Click to expand...
I asked you WHEN I did that, specifically.

Can you provide any examples.....or not?
 
belz wrote:
Good. We agree.

The evidence for bigfoot is weak. VERY weak.
Click to expand...
We don't agree that the evidence is weak. I think the evidence for Bigfoot is strong.

But you do think the evidence carries a little bit of weight...right?

Even "weak" has weight.
 
Sweaty said:
We don't agree that the evidence is weak. I think the evidence for Bigfoot is strong.
Click to expand...

Strong ?

You mean, strong like the thousands of UFO sightings are strong ? Or strong like the overwhelming evidence for evolution strong ?

But you do think the evidence carries a little bit of weight...right?
Click to expand...

Only insofar as eyewitness testimony has weight. The "physical" evidence so far retrieved has no weight at all, because it didn't stand up to scrutiny.

Even "weak" has weight.
Click to expand...

Yes, you seem terribly hooked on that.
 
belz wrote:
Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
Why would that be?
Click to expand...
You're kidding. You have to be.

Because the bigfoot MADE the track. Following the tracks will lead to the bigfoot's current location at least in SOME instances.
Click to expand...
Well...I was running late for work when I wrote that. That's all I could come up with, under pressure. :o

I would think that in some cases, a Bigfoot should actually be living somewhere close-by where the footprints have been found.

That is logical....I can't argue with that.
 
belz wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:

We don't agree that the evidence is weak. I think the evidence for Bigfoot is strong.
Click to expand...
Strong ?

You mean, strong like the thousands of UFO sightings are strong ? Or strong like the overwhelming evidence for evolution strong ?
Click to expand...
I haven't studied the evidence for UFO's....so I can't say how strong the evidence for them really is. But, based on the number of sighting reports all around the globe...and also based on some pretty amazing videos that I've seen....I'd say the evidence for UFO's was some considerable weight to it...fairly strong.

I think the evidence for evolution is extremely close to the level of proof...if not absolutely proven to be correct.

So....I think the evidence for Bigfoot is as strong, or stronger than the evidence for UFO's.

One reason is simply that it's a little easier for me to believe that an intelligent primate is keeping itself well-hidden in the forests, than it is for me to believe that we're being visited by intelligent primates...or reptiles...or Voltones...from another planet.
 
Last edited:
belz wrote:
SweatyYeti wrote:

Even "weak" has weight.
Click to expand...
Yes, you seem terribly hooked on that.
Click to expand...
Yes...I've been trying to make a rather simple point for a rather long time.

Why it takes so long for some to understand such a simple concept as "evidence" is beyond me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom